To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received in connection with the function of job clubs; and if she will make a statement.

Job clubs have been a great success. I have received many representations asking that we provide more places and we shall.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but does not it sit uneasily with the fact the professional and executive job club in my constituency has recently closed? Is she aware that the alternatives provided are very unsatisfactory? Could she examine the situation and find out whether we can make some improvement?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about our new arrangements to replace the Prestwich executive job club. I was glad that he and his constituents found it so helpful and I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, in view of our plan to provide an extra 75,000 places from April, we shall certainly take the opportunity to review arrangements in Prestwich.

How useful can job clubs be, when unemployment in Wallasey is now 5,964 and at the last count there were only 75 vacancies?

Perhaps I could explain to the hon. Lady that the job clubs' record is first class. Nearly 50 per cent. of people who leave them go into work and a further 15 per cent. go into training, self-employment or full-time further education. Two thirds of unemployed people leave the register within six months. The 1.5 million opportunities that we have made available help all unemployed people to improve their prospects of finding work at what is undoubtedly a difficult time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that our job club at the college of technology in Erith is very popular and is widely used by the local community? Does she agree that we should encourage more such clubs, because they give unemployed people tremendous opportunities for companionship and advice and to get into real employment in the near future?

As I said, job clubs are effective in helping unemployed people to find work. I am glad to say that, from April, very nearly 300,000 places will be provided.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to improve the training opportunities for the young unemployed; and if she will make a statement.

I shall be extending the use of credits, which will give more and more young people greater opportunities to gain the skills that they and employers need for the 1990s.

I am grateful for that answer. Does the Minister share the concern of many of my constituents, who think that rising youth unemployment is one of the main reasons for the rocketing crime figures? Why do not the Government increase substantially the amount of money that they spend on youth unemployment, in a week when employment figures throughout Britain will reach 3 million?

Due to the larger numbers of young people staying on at school we have a large amount of resources to spend on youth training. All training and enterprise councils have the resources to meet the guarantee and I have left them in no doubt that that is what they are expected to do.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's stated policy and intention that every young person over the age of 16 should be in either education or full-time training, unless they have a job? Will she do what she can to improve the way in which information is gathered for statistics involving young people who are seeking jobs or who are in training? Finally, will she confirm that, under the Government, about 250,000 young people are undergoing training, compared with only 7,000 under the Labour Government in 1979?

About 291,000 young people are training under youth training and currently, of those, more than three quarters find jobs or go on to further education. There was a problem with the exchange of information between careers services, training providers and TECs in the summer, which was why I announced then the improved arrangements. I am continuing to monitor them closely.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if we were to use the same definition for the young unemployed as the Conservative party uses for the Young Conservatives, everyone who is out of work would be included in that category?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment is not an option for young people aged between 16 and 17. They either remain in full-time education—there has been a welcome 25 per cent. Increase in the numbers going into further education—find a job, or take up a guaranteed youth training place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the fact that large numbers of 18 to 21-year-olds are going into higher education and provision has been made for them. On the issue of benefit eligibility, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time a couple of weeks ago—that a wide range of options is being considered to help unemployed people to use their time productively. I shall make an announcement in a few weeks' time.

When my right hon. Friend is considering that wide range of options, will she blow the dust off the original community programme that we had in 1980? It was a successful programme as a follow-on to training, particularly for young poeple, and it had a good record of placing people in jobs. We should not rewrite the book when we already have a good book on the shelf.

I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in the matter. A large number of elements of the old community programme have been retained in employment action. My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the excellence of many features of that programme, which is one of the options that we are currently considering.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the north of England.

In December 1992, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 168,500 unemployed claimants in the northern region.

One of the few areas of expansion that the Government have achieved since 1979 has been unemployment and my constituency has had more than its fair share of that commodity. Last week a Minister said that the way to rebuild the economy in this country was to ensure that we had a well-trained and well-educated work force. In view of that, does the Minister agree that the last thing that we require is a tax on knowledge? If he agrees, will he speak to his colleagues and ensure that no value added tax is placed on books, periodicals and newspapers?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that, in July 1986, unemployment in his constituency was 10,991 and that it is now 6,812—a reduction of 38 per cent. I should have thought that even he might welcome that, but perhaps I was hoping for far too much. The question of which issues will be included in the Budget is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the significant inward investment that has been made in the north-east? Is he aware of the £2.7 billion of inward investment and the 35,000 jobs that it has either created or safeguarded? Does he agree that that has been achieved because organisations such as the Northern Development Company, Tyne and Wear development corporation and the Teesside development corporation—all Government sponsored—have gone round the world promoting the considerable benefits of locating in the north-east, not perpetually running down the north-east, as the Labour party does?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to inward investment, which has been very important to the north-east and the northern region. Inward investment is indeed welcome and has certainly not been described by the Government as "alien" —as it was described not so long ago by the Trades Union Congress. My hon. Friend is right: inward investment has provided many jobs and is very welcome.

Will the Minister confirm that there are now 200,000 fewer jobs in the northern region than there were in 1979? Will he take the advice of all who watch him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on television and listen to them on the radio? Will they cut the cackle, stop waffling and actually create some jobs?

If anyone has been responsible for waffle, it is Opposition Members rather than us.

May I remind my hon. Friend that any geographical description of the north of England must include Yorkshire and Humberside? Does he agree that, in Yorkshire and the rest of the northern region, entrepreneurs and others who wish to set up businesses will find a good quality of life, local authorities that are prepared to help them with planning and a willing work force second to none in the United Kingdom?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is absolutely right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average weekly wage for (a) men and (b) women.

The figures are £346.70 and £247.10. respectively.

That is appalling as it stands, but will the Minister tell us whether it includes workers below the national insurance threshold? Will he also tell us—given that a major factor in the gender gap is the concentration of women in low-paid employment—why the Government are deliberately widening that gap by abolishing wages councils? Is not it time that they did something to help low-paid women by extending the power and scope of wages councils, strengthening the Equal Pay Act 1970 and providing more child care facilities to which such women can have access?

I note the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the abolition of wages councils. I am not sure that he was a leading opponent of their abolition when the Labour Government abolished 11 of them.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is important to be price-competitive when recession and unemployment are increasing everywhere? We certainly do not want to price ourselves out of jobs—especially in my hon. Friend's constituency and mine, where the tourist industry is a big employer.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to point out that wages councils destroy jobs. If we were to adopt the Opposition's policy and opt for some form of minimum wage, instead of having the highest proportion of the female work force in employment, we might find ourselves in the same position as Spain, where nearly a quarter of the female population is out of work. Spain is one of the two countries in Europe with a statutory national minimum wage.

Will the Minister confirm that the gap between men's and women's wages is far less in the sectors covered by wages councils than it is in other sectors? Is not that a strong argument for retaining wages councils, rather than abolishing them?

It was precisely that attitude which was responsible for the destruction of so many apprenticeships in this country. It seems that the hon. Lady would like to have people with no jobs and no apprenticeships in return for having a national minimum wage. I should be much more impressed by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is so vocal on the Opposition Front Bench about the abolition of wages councils, if they were to tell the House that after this House has abolished wages councils a future Labour Government would bring them back. The hon. Lady has consistently refused to do so because she recognises that wages councils are an anachronism which cover a mere 10 per cent. of the work force.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what current proposals the European Commission has to introduce, under other treaty provisions, measures within the scope of the social chapter.

It is for the European Commission to decide what proposals it brings forward under the treaty or under the Maastricht agreement of Eleven on social policy.

May I reassure the excellent employers of Milton Keynes that the Secretary of State's fight against the working hours directive will continue and that no parts of the social chapter will be brought in under the guise of health and safety directives without a continued fight from the Government? Does my hon. Friend agree, as the employers in my constituency do, that Britain is, as Jacques Delors says, a paradise for foreign investment as a result of this Government's policies?

It is certainly true that Britain gets something like 40 per cent. of the inward investment coming into the European Community. My hon. Friend is right to point to the job-destroying effects of the social chapter measures. I was struck by the fact that the non-wage costs of employing Hoover workers in Dijon is five times the cost of employing the same workers in Cambuslang.

Does the Minister agree that the problem is not just about the legislation that is about to come from Europe? It is about the legislation which we already have but which has not yet been implemented by the Government—in particular, the acquired rights directive. Will the Minister confirm that the acquired rights directive applies to compulsory competitive tendering, that it has always applied to compulsory competitive tendering and that those individuals who have been disadvantaged by the Government's not applying it in the past can now seek compensation? When will the Government publicise those facts so that workers can obtain their democratic rights?

The question whether the acquired rights directive applies will depend upon each contract and the circumstances pertaining to it. If an undertaking has been transferred, the terms of the acquired rights directive will apply. For the hon. Gentleman to describe British workers as being denied rights because Britain refuses to have any part of the social chapter is nonsense. The fact is that British workers have the right to determine the terms and conditions of their employment alongside their employers. By transferring the right to decide that outside Britain, British workers are losing rights, not having their rights enhanced.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that whatever the European Commission happens to bring forward, it is the Council of Ministers which makes the final decision on what should be accepted? Does my hon. Friend agree that if only we could make progress towards ratification of the Maastricht treaty, we could set about altering the institutions of the European Community and bringing them more into line with what the British Government would prefer?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that these matters are ultimately decided by the Council of Ministers, although the point to which I think he drew attention was that matters were being brought forward under health and safety provisions which were determined on a majority vote—like working time, which would be damaging to jobs in this country. The Government will continue to fight those measures because we wish to have no part in making the European Community or Britain less competitive and putting more people on the dole as a result.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent on official entertainment in her Department in the last financial year.

In 1991–22, the amounts spent by the Employment Department, ACAS, the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Commission the Employment Service and the Office of Manpower Economics were £43,281, £6,927, £13,635, £23,500 and £7,858 respectively. This represents three thousandths of 1 per cent. of the Department's budget.

The Minister is not going to get away so easily with that answer. I can well understand a modest amount being spent on entertainment, but for his Department to spend that sort of money in 1992–23 and the year before when unemployment has risen every month is an absurdity. What is this year's budget to be spent on—champagne to celebrate unemployment reaching 3 million on Thursday, on pâte de foie gras being stuffed down the throats of employers because Britain is being turned into a sweatshop, or shall we be drinking highballs to celebrate the opt-out from the social charter? The Government have no right to spend taxpayers' money on wassailing in the Department of Employment while the unemployed have nothing to celebrate.

It seems that the only people who will be drinking champagne to celebrate 3 million people being unemployed are the Opposition. They have offered no constructive messages and have opposed every training scheme that we have introduced. We shall accept no strictures from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), as the one thing that I have been unable to find out is the amount of money spent on entertainment by the Greater London council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amount of money spent on entertaining which he announced this afternoon is petty cash compared with the Department's budget? If that money enables our officers and Ministers to tell people that we have low inflation, low taxation, low interest rates and sensible trade union legislation which will attract jobs into this country, is not it just petty cash and was not it stupid to ask that question?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that any money spent by the Department on such matters is very closely monitored.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people employed in the commercial vehicle industry at the end of 1992.

There are no separate estimates for the commercial vehicle industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the numbers in the industry will be diminished if the Government do not assist Leyland DAF? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get off his backside, stop his inactivity and begin to intervene on behalf of the leading truck maker, as the Belgian and Dutch Governments are doing?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it clear in the House that the receivers believe that at least part of the United Kingdom operations can be saved as a commercially viable business without state handouts. He also made it clear that we cannot repeat the open-ended taxpayers' commitments of the British Leyland years. He also said that if proposals are made to the Government for help with specific projects, we are prepared to consider them on their own merits, provided, of course, that they are within EC rules and the usual criteria under the industrial development legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is her Department, through the redundancy fund, which has paid the money to the ex-workers of Leyland DAF? Therefore, have not the Government already helped the commercial vehicle workers?

We made rapid arrangements to pay statutory redundancy payments. It is also true that Employment Service and training and enterprise council staff are ready to go to plants deal with claims and offer advice.

Does the Secretary of State agree that redundancy payments from her Department are the last kind of assistance that British workers want from the Government? Does she realise that three and a half jobs for every direct job are at risk as a result of the Leyland DAF crisis? Does she accept that there is a serious discrepancy between what the President of the Board of Trade said about approaches that have been made and what is being said by representatives of the company? Will she make representations for more active involvement by the DTI to save the jobs involved?

I made clear my Department's intention to give every possible assistance to workers affected in that way, and I repeat that the receivers believe that at least part of the United Kingdom operations can be saved. Staff and Ministers of the Department of Trade and Industry have stood ready to give help if required and I can do no more than repeat what I just said to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).

Does my right hon. Friend agree that European Governments should redouble their efforts to deal with the problem of over-capacity in the commercial vehicle industry in Europe? To that end, should not particular help be given to long-serving truck workers who lost their jobs in 1992?

I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency interest in the matter. He is right to pinpoint as the problem the over-capacity of truck production. Nevertheless, the Government hope that some help can be given and that something can be salvaged from the current problems of Leyland DAF?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has for reducing unemployment in west Cumbria.

The Employment Service and training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in west Cumbria, as elsewhere.

Has the Minister noted the framing of my question, No. 8 on the Order Paper, which asks what proposals the Secretary of State has for reducing unemployment in west Cumbria? May I have an answer to my question? What proposals do the Government have for reducing unemployment in an area where there is no prospect of new industry coming in? Young people in my constituency, who asked me to table the question about their future prospects, want an answer. What proposals do the Government have?

The Government have consistently made it clear that it is our intention to provide the right economic climate so that job and employment opportunities will be available to people. Bearing in mind all the Government's investment in west Cumbria—the Trident programme and the development of Sellafield—it is strange that the hon. Gentleman should have the cheek to ask such a question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received calling for action to ensure that Sikhs living in the United Kingdom and throughout the EC are exempted for religious reasons from requirements to wear protective headgear in appropriate workplaces.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on the matter. I have met various hon. Members to discuss the matter, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and for Slough (Mr. Watts) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

Why are the Minister and his Secretary of State so reluctant to stand up for the religious beliefs of Sikhs in the United Kingdom and throughout the EC? Why has the Minister's Department failed to consult the Home Office on the race relations aspects of the matter? When will he seek some convenient legal advice from the Attorney-General in order to find a way in which to exempt Sikhs from the daft requirement to remove their turbans in order to wear protective head gear?

While the directive was being negotiated, the United Kingdom issued a unilateral minute stating that the provisions of article 6 of the directive

"are not intended to result in requirements which are incompatible with the beliefs and practices of religious groups in member states."

Does my hon. Friend believe that more or fewer Sikhs would be at work if we were to introduce a national minimum wage and sign the social chapter? Do those who advocate that course of action not want the unemployment of more Sikhs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is, of course, right. Such practices, which the Opposition would have imposed on the United Kingdom, would severely restrict employment opportunities generally throughout the United Kingdom.

I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I have raised the question with the Leader of the House in early-day motion 1251 in my name and those of hon. Friends. I come from the same community. I know that the directive will be an attack on the Sikh religion. This Government can ignore the EC directive. They have done so in the past whenever it suited them. I am sure that this Government—[Interruption.]

Order. There are occasions when the House has to be a little tolerant. This happens to be one of them. I am sure that the hon. Member will now put a direct question, having made his comment.

I ask the Minister to ignore the EC directive, since the Government can disregard and ignore the views of the House on a matter important to the nations concerned, such as the Maastricht treaty. They could ignore this directive and grant a concession to the Sikhs as they granted a concession to the Sikhs in the construction industry.

I do understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making on this. At the meetings I have held with leaders of the Sikh community, with hon. Friends and a Labour hon. Member, these points have been put to me. We tried to secure a derogation from the directive and that failed in 1989. There is no reason to suppose that a new approach would be more successful, especially as the directive has now come into force. I recognise the point that the hon. Member makes and I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council replied to his question after the statement on business.

None the less, can further approaches be made to the Commission to seek a derogation from the offensive provisions of this directive?

I am grateful for the question, but we did try to get a derogation at the time of the negotiations in 1989. That failed, but I am willing to consider very strong representations that have been made to me by my hon. Friends and by Labour hon. Members, but I cannot say that that will be successful, at the end of the day.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give the latest figures for adult male unemployment in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales, (c) the valleys programme area and (d) Neath.

The unadjusted rates are 14.2 per cent.,14.2 per cent., 19.6 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively.

The Secretary of State has confirmed that one in five adult males is unemployed in the south Wales valleys area, That is a disgraceful figure. When added to the one in five who are economically inactive, that means that four in 10 people are seeking work or wish to work in the south Wales valleys area. When will the Secretary of State stop mouthing fine words and coming up with seminars and gimmicks, and when will she do her job of creating employment in this country by carrying out a programme of investment—not gimmicks, schemes and other words of sympathy?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for all people facing unemployment, but he surely welcomes the fact that unemployment in Neath, his constituency, has fallen in the past 12 months. He must be delighted, too, that unemployment is lower in Wales than in some regions of England and that that is due in no small part to a highly successful programme of inward investment which last year brought 17,000 jobs to Wales with capital expenditure of more than £1 billion. The hon. Gentleman asks about action; that is action, but it has been welcomed by him and his comrades in the TUC as alien action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Wales has attracted inward investment by more than 1,000 companies since 1981 creating tens of thousands of jobs? Does she agree that if the Labour party were to have its way with the social chapter that inward investment would dry up?

There is no question about it. Indeed, if Opposition Members were to have their way with many of the other lunatic policies that they wish to pursue—for example, punitive taxation of successful companies, levies and burdens on business, support for the social chapter and for the national minimum wage—it would discourage inward investment and hence the creation of jobs.

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the figures that she has just given for the United Kingdom show that we now lose no fewer than 15 million working days every week because of unemployment? Does she agree that it is the economics of the madhouse for Britain to attempt to do without the products, goods and services of the people that her Government have thrown out of work? Is it not time that, instead of just expressing her concern and coming up with fiddled figures, she did something about getting people in this country back to work? They want real jobs, and when they are at work they want to be paid well enough to be able to bring up their families.

Earlier the hon. Gentleman exhorted us to cut the cackle, which is pretty rich coming from someone who has raised blustering to an art form. He is quite right when he says that what people want is real jobs, and real jobs can come only from the pursuit of low inflation, low interest rates and low burdens on businesses —exactly the reverse of all the policies pursued and supported by Opposition Members.

May I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that we recall how we created jobs in the 1980s by maintaining a low taxation, low interest rate and high incentive economy? I draw her attention to the unemployment record in France, which has been linked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development directly to the application of minimum wage legislation, which demonstrably destroys jobs.

It is indeed the case that the experience of France in terms of job creation was in direct contrast to our own during the 1980s, when our supply-side measures were described as impressive by the OECD.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her latest estimate of unemployment among persons aged under 21 years.

Claimant unemployment figures by age are produced quarterly and for specific age bands only. On the unadjusted basis, there were 243,928 claimant unemployed people aged under 20 in the United Kingdom in October 1992.

Is the Minister aware of the disastrously high level of youth unemployment in many parts of Wales and elsewhere? Is he aware that for those leaving youth training schemes the unemployment level in Wales has increased from 15.9 per cent. in 1990 to over 26 per cent? Is this not a totally unacceptable level? In these circumstances, why on earth do the Government cut back the money available to the training and enterprise councils, as they have with the West Wales TEC, where they have cut back £800,000, when the money is desperately needed to give training opportunities to young people?

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that 74 per cent. of those who go on youth training schemes manage to find jobs when they finish their course. I should have thought that he would welcome that. My right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that we stand by the guarantee to all people in that age bracket, and if for any reason any TEC cannot meet that guarantee, we are willing to consider whether extra resources can be made available to it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we on the Conservative Benches fully understand the terrible difficulties that unemployment brings for individuals and their families? Does my hon. Friend agree that a system of workfare, particularly for young people, is worthy of consideration? Not only would it ensure that certain useful environmentally friendly jobs were carried out; it would also give those young people an opportunity to have contact with the world of work.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will acknowledge the change that we have made already whereby young people will not have the opportunity of claiming benefit without going through training or further education. With regard to workfare, I can only say that we are looking at a number of schemes that have been put to us.

Does the Minister know that some of our biggest companies are closing their apprentice training schools? Does he know that this is particularly the case in steel, textiles and aerospace? What will the Government do about this serious development, which will prove to be the route to industrial suicide unless they do something about it?

My right hon. Friend mentioned the damage that had been done to the apprenticeship scheme, and the way in which many trade unions tried to pursue larger wage increases. We are determined to ensure there is proper training and look forward to a change and to reversing the policy of the Opposition so that they start supporting training schemes we have taken forward.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as far as workfare is concerned, there are already schemes in place that assist those who are unemployed and that it would be better to look at a scheme such as this as an additional resource for the unemployed? Might not there be competition for such a scheme because of the additional resources that will be provided?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A number of schemes are available, such as employment action, which has been very successful and useful in the community.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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.

In 1979, just over 1 million people were unemployed. At the same time, just over 7 million people were employed in manufacturing industry—seven people in manufacturing jobs for every single person unemployed. Now, measuring unemployment in the same way, there are 4.25 million unemployed. On Thursday this week—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. He knows that he must put a direct question.

In the past 14 years, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. Did the Prime Minister intend to do that, or was it someone else's fault?

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that

"the threat of recession and the reality of rising unemployment is spreading throughout the European continent"

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Nissan factory in Sunderland has been declared by its Japanese owners to be the most efficient factory in the world? Is he further aware that should this House be foolish enough to include the socialist charter in the Maastricht treaty, Japanese inward investment would be seriously discouraged?

I was not aware of the specific point made by my hon. Friend, but I was aware that Nissan is exporting cars from Sunderland back to Japan. I offer my congratulations to the management and work force on that achievement. There is no doubt that the social chapter and similar policies would damage the prospect of such success stories in future. That is why we opposed it at Maastricht and why we oppose it now.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the House should be able to decide whether Britain should accept or reject the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?

It is for this House to decide by its vote on Third Reading whether to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and enable the Government to ratify the treaty. There is no question of our ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. Individual amendments to the Bill will be debated in Committee in the usual way as for others.

Bearing in mind that the Government announced their latest interpretation of the law only yesterday, and as other amendments apart from amendment No. 27 have been ruled out of order, is not it a curious coincidence that the prospect of political defeat causes a revision of the legal opinion? Why are the Government so anxious to prevent the House from deciding this issue?

There are two sorts of amendments that we have to deal with in the Bill. There are those that would render our law incompatible with the treaty and which must be defeated, and others that are undesirable but which would not prevent us from ratifying the treaty. The Committee will come to those, issue by issue.

Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame? Today, he was described in The Times as being like a

"spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer".

Order.

Why is the Prime Minister so determined to use every slippery manoeuvre to avoid Parliament deciding this issue? Is he not engaged in an outright abuse of our unwritten constitution?

Vote against Third Reading and we'll show them. [Interruption.]

:Occasionally, it might be a novelty to see the hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Sharp lawyers in glass houses should not throw stones in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. The Government are explaining to the House what the true effect of an incompetent Opposition amendment would be.

Would the Prime Minister express the feelings of the whole House by praising the fine British achievement in the Antarctic by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Dr. Stroud? Does he consider that that is an example of volunteering for a good cause which he was advocating earlier this year?

I am happy to offer my congratulations and those of the House to Sir Ranulph. It shows that if one keeps going one will get to one's objective.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Could the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Clinton, assure him of our good wishes but at the same time urge him to resist moves to appoint a peace envoy for Northern Ireland since those who advocate it are partisan in their opinion?

There has been a considerable effort by the United States Government and a number of leading American politicians to curb the flow of funds from the United States and to co-operate with us in bringing terrorist criminals to justice. I welcome that very much.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

My right hon. Friend will recall that the last time that inflation was 1.7 per cent. he was just 25 years old and I was even younger. He will also recall that the then Labour Chancellor stated that inflation was the mother and father of unemployment. Is it not the case that with low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation and high productivity, Britain is best placed to recover from the recession ahead of all the other countries in Europe?

I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect; I believe that I was 24 at the time and not 25. But the fall in inflation in January was excellent news in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying rate of inflation. It provides the best possible basis for recovery in output and employment. We now have the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century and a rate below that of our colleagues in the Community and below the G7 averages. We have the lowest interest rates in the Community. We have mortgage rates at their lowest since 1956 and external surveys show that the United Kingdom will be among the fastest growing economies in Europe both this year and next year.

To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

I have no plans to visit the United Nations headquarters in New York in the near future.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's support of the United Nations is highly selective and that there is absolutely no case for the Government continuing to breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the manufacture and deployment of Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

What about Rosyth?

Does the Prime Minister endorse and support—

What about Rosyth?

Order. The hon. Gentleman had better contain himself.

Does the Prime Minister endorse and support the 150 members of the United Nations who have by treaty and declaration refused to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If he supports those 150 nations and their moral superiority, why does he not follow them? Does he support them, yes or no?

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) drew attention to some of the inconsistencies in the hon. Gentleman's question. The replacement of Polaris in the mid-1990s is essential for Britain to maintain an effective and credible deterrent into the next century. There is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prevent a nuclear weapons state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of a minimum deterrent in this way. That is the position in law and it is our position in policy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory and misleading answer, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter again, but he had better withdraw the word "misleading".

rose—

Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I heard the word. I am sure that he will rephrase it for me.

I will withdraw the word "misleading" and say that he was economical with the truth.

Mr. Patrick Thompson.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of representations from the police and local crime prevention panels, including the panel in Norwich, about the increased number of serious crimes committed by young people, some out on bail? Some individuals commit literally hundreds of offences. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to tackle that horrendous problem?

I will offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is a small hard core of persistent young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, most notably property crime, especially car theft. In the past society has sometimes perhaps been too quick to understand and too slow to condemn. I doubt whether that helps the young people concerned. It is time to crack down on those young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly make proposals to do just that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

With reference to the Prime Minister's earlier answer on the question of Maastricht, may I inform him that this morning I had the pleasure of showing round the House of Commons a group of pupils from Brannock high school in my constituency? Having spoken of 1,000 years of Parliament and several hundred years of parliamentary sovereignty, I was asked a simple question by one of the pupils: "But what good is Parliament if the Prime Minister can ignore it when he chooses?" How would the Prime Minister have responded to that question?

He would have said, "I can't, and I don't."

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of literally thousands of my constituents who work at British Aerospace on the Tornado line for the work that he did in personally securing the contract? Will he further accept that my constituents know that they have him and the Conservative party to thank for securing their future in the defence industry and the future of their families? Unlike the Labour party, which whinges and whines, my right hon. Friend goes out and gets jobs for Britain.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that endorsement. The Tornado is undoubtedly a fine aircraft and I hope that we shall be able to export many more.