To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to meet representatives of the United States Government to discuss Northern Ireland.

I hope to meet members of the new United States Administration within the next few months.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets President Clinton's team, will he make it clear that if the President would like to send an envoy to this country as a fact finder and as a supporter of my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent peace work, it will be most welcome? However, if President Clinton sends somebody to this country to meddle, that would be as offensive as if this country sent a peace envoy to the Mexican border to look into the problems of the Hispanics.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am certain that the President of the United States would not want to send anybody to Northern Ireland for the latter purpose that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important that the American Administration continue to give their full support to the talks process to which my hon. Friend kindly referred. I welcome every opportunity to explain our understanding of the true facts of Northern Ireland and the continuing efforts of the two Governments and of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

When the Secretary of State has an opportunity to talk to members of the United States Government, will he restate the investment potential of north Belfast— an area of special needs, and one which has a work force willing and able to adapt to special circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the material welfare of his constituency, and of course I will do as he wishes. I will not limit my endeavours to north Belfast because the truth is that the whole of Northern Ireland presents an admirable investment opportunity—especially to investors seeking a gateway to the single European market. I have found that overseas companies that have established themselves in Northern Ireland turn out to be the best ambassadors for Northern Ireland in that regard.

Will the Secretary of State point out to the American Government that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome anyone from America, because we sent many people there in the 18th century to help create the United States of America? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also remind the United States Government that Northern Ireland has received visitors ever since St. Patrick arrived there—first under duress, but later glad to return to Northern Ireland? St. Patrick was of course what the IRA term a Brit. We also had visitors from the nordic countries—Vikings—to my constituency 1,300 years ago, when they wiped out the marvellous university of Bangor. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State will stress that we are always glad to welcome friendly visitors to our part of the United Kingdom.

At a recent public meeting in Northern Ireland I was introduced as St. Patrick, and I take much to heart the hon. Gentleman's remarks. When people come to Northern Ireland genuinely seeking to learn the true facts of the situation there, they go away wiser and happier. Anyone from the United States Administration who comes to Northern Ireland for that purpose will be very welcome, and I expect that they, too, will return to America happier and wiser people.

It is interesting to note the change in the Secretary of State's attitude since the election in the United States and the result that emerged from it.

I readily confirm that successive United States Administrations have been of great help. In particular, I acknowledge with gratitude the help in curtailing funds that reach terrorist organisations, notably the IRA, from American sources.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were treated by the national health service (a) in 1982 and (b) in 1992.

In addition to this year's 1·3 million out-patient attendances and 641,000 accident and emergency attendances, 280,000 in-patients were treated in Northern Ireland in 1992. That is 15 per cent. up on the 240,000 treated in 1982. In the same period, the number of people treated as day cases increased from 10,000 to over 60,000.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an increase of 36 per cent., from 250,000 to 310,000, demonstrates the Government's commitment to the health service, and to the people of Northern Ireland? Will he now tell us what has happened—within the overall figure —to the level of waiting lists for cardiac surgery?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which I shall pass on to my noble Friend Lord Arran, the Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland.

When considering the availability of acute hospital services and access to such services, will the Minister also consider—and tell the House—whether they should be rationalised without boards making known to the public the full implications, including financial implications, of the change? Is the Minister aware that, in its document "Making Choices", the Southern board has suggested changes in the delivery of maternity services, which would certainly disadvantage many people in south Tyrone and mid-Ulster? I refer to the proposals for the South Tyrone hospital.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Southern health and social services board's recently-published major reviews, entitled "Making Choices." It is a genuine review; it asks people to state their choices; it asks for their comments. Any interested individuals or organisations can send in their responses by 31 March. It is hoped that the review of services will be completed by 31 May. The hon. Gentleman said that the review does not contain certain information. The review contains six options for the future arrangement of hospital services. However, the board made it clear that it wants other options to be generated and that it wants suggestions from the general public. This is genuine, open consultation. No decisions have been taken.

Does the Minister not realise that in the Western board area the excellent maternity services provided by the Tyrone county hospital for the mothers and children of that area are being destroyed by a totally undemocratic board which does not represent the will of the people and runs across everything that is included in the patients charter and that affects patients choice? The review is no more than a sham. It will not be accepted by the people of that area; and it never will.

The hon. Gentleman has put his views to Ministers forcefully over the past few months. We are grateful for the interest that he takes in his constituents in that regard. Although "Making Choices" says that there could be a loss of obstetric, gynaecological, ear, nose and throat and paediatric services at South Tyrone hospital, the report makes clear that no decisions have been or will be made on anything until the whole consultative process is complete. The Southern health and social services board will take full account of the views expressed by the interested parties in framing its views for the future. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a very important part still to play in that consultation process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment in Northern Ireland.

So far this financial year, the Industrial Development Board has secured seven new inward investment projects involving a total investment of just over £105 million and offering 1,299 new jobs. This is a most encouraging achievement.

How many of the firms to which my hon. Friend referred in his answer would have come to Ulster if the clammy hand of the social chapter had been wrapped around the throat of the Province's economy?

My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has put his finger right on the key to all this. My hon. Friend will recall what the President of the European Commission said recently when he referred to the United Kingdom as being a paradise for investment. Certainly this part of the United Kingdom is doing extremely well and would probably do a jolly sight less well if it had to be part of the social chapter, as my hon. Friend rightly says.

May I, on behalf of my colleagues, congratulate those who have been associated with bringing successful new inward investment to Northern Ireland. However, my constituency has lost ICI, Courtaulds, Carreras, Klingers Yarn, Blue Circle, Circaprint and GEC. When can I expect some investment to be directed towards my constituency to make up for those job losses? Can the Minister assure me that sufficient assistance is available to existing industry in Northern Ireland to secure its jobs and its own manufacturing base?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about his constituency, which I understand. It happened over a number of years. The Industrial Development Board, together with Ministers, has tried very hard to redress that by attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. We have been extremely successful, as the hon. Gentleman recognised in his opening remarks. He will understand, however, that if a company wishes to invest in Northern Ireland, the IDB can only offer a variety of choices to it. It is up to the company, in the final analysis, to make a decision about where to go. Of course we offer the hon. Gentleman's area, just as we offer every other area in the constituencies of Members on both sides of the House. In those circumstances, I do not believe that his premise holds up: that, somehow, we are letting his part of the world down. I shall continue, as he well knows, to fight as hard as I possibly can for new investment, both in his constituency and in every other constituency in the Province.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the undoubted need for inward investment does not justify American interference in the affairs of the Province? If there is such interference, does he agree that it should be on a reciprocal basis and that we should be allowed to talk about the problems of the black areas of New York? Might I suggest that I might be given a small job in that discussion because I am ignorant, prejudiced and extremely keen to offer unasked for and impertinent advice in order that I may appear important to my constituents? It is obvious that I am supremely suited, as the Americans are, to the task.

I shall certainly draw the attention of the Chief Whip to my hon. Friend's interest and hope that perhaps for the next three months he might be able to provide my hon. Friend with the opportunity to leave this country so that he does not have to participate in any votes on the Maastricht treaty.

If I may return to the more serious business of unemployment in Northern Ireland, I congratulate the Minister and agree that any inward investment is most welcome. But surely he must be aware from his own departmental statistics and, indeed, his parliamentary answers, that certain areas of Northern Ireland never have industrial development. They coincide with high endemic unemployment. Does he agree that the matter must be redressed by the zoning of Northern Ireland for preferential treatment for those areas that have been deprived of investment in the past and have a current and endemic higher level of unemployment than many other areas?

The hon. Gentleman fights his corner as hard as anyone I know in trying to attract inward investment. I know of his particular interest in Chicago and other areas of the United States. I reiterate the point that I made to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) that I cannot force a company to invest in a particular area if it chooses not to do so. My job is to persuade them to invest in Northern Ireland. Of course, we try to encourage them in areas where we see that there is a factory, a site or a problem that would suit their operation. Given the concern that he expresses, as he knows, I have undertaken to make inquiries with the IDB about exactly what it is doing in his constituency. If I find that there are weaknesses, I shall seek to redress them.

While inward investment in Northern Ireland is to be welcomed, wherever it originates, it is having little effect on the employment prospects of a vast number of people in the Province. The Minister will be aware that the total number of people unemployed in Northern Ireland now stands at a staggering 108,000. Of that total, 29,152 are under the age of 25. Given such a chronic waste of talent and skill, what positive steps does the Minister intend to take to reduce the unacceptable levels of unemployment which are his direct responsibility?

I cannot accept the direct finger of responsibility which the hon. Gentleman points at me. The problem has for many years existed and he is right to say that it is a difficult and intractable problem. Although the headline total of unemployment in Northern Ireland has increased, the adjusted figure is the same as last month's figure. The figures for the past four months are encouraging, while the total is disappointing. But that makes even more important the task that I and my hon. Friends in the Administration, together with every Member of Parliament, have in encouraging existing companies to expand and provide new jobs and in attracting new companies, such as those that were the subject of the excellent announcements just before and just after Christmas of 1,400 job creation opportunities from inward investment. That provides the future for the young people about whom the hon. Gentleman and I are so concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

Since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State answered a similar question on 21 January there have been eight deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including five civilians, one member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and two soldiers.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern in the House about the rising level of violence by those who, while calling themselves loyalists, seem to specialise in killing and maiming Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland. What success are the security forces having in curtailing the activities of such vicious criminals and, more importantly, in successfully bringing them before the courts?

My hon. Friend is right. It is a worry that so-called loyalist terrorists are on the increase, that violence is on the increase and, worst of all, that random sectarian killing seems to be a feature of what comes from that side of the community. We are determined to root out the terrorists from whichever side of the divide they come. There is no difference in the determination of the Government and of the RUC to bring terrorists to justice, from whatever side of the community in Northern Ireland they come.

Has the Minister seen the report in the Belfast Telegraph about the IRA ordering 40 young men to leave Dundalk or, as the IRA delicately put it, "face the consequences"? That comes on the eve of the Sinn Fein/IRA annual conference in Dundalk—which, of course, is those organisations' forward base. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State expect parties in the House to condemn that exclusion order as fiercely as they oppose the prevention of terrorism Acts?

Indeed, we have nothing but contempt for what the IRA stands for, for what it says and for all its works. The way in which it seeks to impose its own law in certain parts of Northern Ireland will he resisted as, I am perfectly certain, the Irish Government will wish to resist any attempt the IRA may make to take the place of the forces of law and order in the Republic of Ireland.

Is the Minister now in a position to make a full statement about the bomb discovered three weeks ago in the canteen of the Crumlin Road prison? Would he care to confirm or deny to the House that just before the bomb was found the canteen had been used by republican prisoners, that the security check had been made and had failed to discover the bomb, and that the bomb was actually discovered by an orderly shifting chairs in the canteen? Can he tell the House whether the security camera placed in the canteen after the previous bombing in 1991, in which a loyalist prisoner was killed, was in operation? Will he tell the House whether anyone has been charged with the planting of this bomb or of the previous bomb, which killed a loyalist prisoner?

There is no question that the incident was very serious, in that any amount of explosive, however small, that finds it way into any prison is a serious matter. However, it is important to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the device was not a bomb and was not capable of explosion. It was a very small piece of explosive with some form of electrical contact. To say that is not to undermine the seriousness of the situation, but the device was not a bomb.

The Minister will be aware that the people of Northern Ireland must have confidence not only in the role of the security forces but in the Ministers responsible for dealing with them. Bearing that in mind, will he take the opportunity not only to agree with the Prime Minister that all who were killed on bloody Sunday were innocent, but to apologise for and correct the inaccuracies in the statement that he made on Radio Telefis Eireann? First, rubber batons were used in Derry on the same day, so the Army had methods of protecting themselves other than bullets. Secondly, the Minister said:

"There would have been no murder of anyone if it hadn't been for the bloody riot organised by those very"

First, the extracts from which the hon. Gentleman has read came from an interview that I gave 14 months ago, on a different day and in a different context, when I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and not a Minister. That part of my statement was taken out of context, but I said straight away—the next day—that those remarks were high on the list of things that I wished I had not said. I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has also said one or two things in the past that he has had cause to regret. I then made a statement in which I fully supported the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), and I stand by what that letter said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were convicted of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland in 1992.

Last year, 404 people were charged with serious terrorist-related offences, including 34 with murder, and 63 with attempted murder; 354 people were convicted, including seven of murder and seven of attempted murder.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. How does the number of charges made compare with the number of incidents reported? Is he satisfied with the level of cross-border co-operation that he receives from the Irish Republic?

I am not sure that we have the statistics in the form for which my hon. Friend asks, but I will certainly look into that and, if we do, I shall write to him about them.

With regard to the brutal murders in 1988 of corporals Derek Howe and Derek Wood in Penny lane, Andersonstown, and the gross inconsistencies of the court decisions on those charged in connection with those murders, and bearing in mind that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons were not present in Penny lane when the soldiers were shot, will the Secretary of State refer those cases and other associated ones to the Court of Appeal? The Secretary of State will be aware that relevant medical evidence relating to Patrick Kane was not used at the trial. I am aware that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has already raised this matter.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the cases relating to the murder of those corporals. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering all of them and will then take whatever action he considers appropriate.

When my hon. Friend discusses with his colleagues in government the conviction of terrorists, will he bring to their attention how essential the helicopter assets of the Royal Air Force and the Army are in catching the terrorists before they are convicted? We cannot trade off those helicopters for regiments of infantry; we need to have both.

My hon. Friend finds ever more ingenious ways of making his point. This is, of course, a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and not for me. However, the contribution made by Army and RAF helicopters in Northern Ireland is of inestimable value in the fight against terrorism.

Will the Minister also confirm that the helicopters took the film that enabled the courts to identify and convict the persons involved in the murder of the two army corporals, including Messrs. Kane, Kelly and Timmons, are a particularly valuable asset to the security forces? Will the Minister recommend to the Secretary of State that when he replies to the erroneous and misleading letter that he received from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), he should explain carefully the distinctions, in law and in fact, which the courts drew carefully and accurately in that case?

I confirm that all the helicopter assets are of value; the way in which one can observe and take pictures of incidents is also particularly valuable in bringing convictions. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard what he said and will no doubt take it into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many expressions of interest in trust status have been received from hospitals in the Belfast area.

Belfast is part of the Eastern health and social services board area, in which all the units of management have expressed interest in attaining trust status.

That is good news for the people of Northern Ireland, but can my hon. Friend do anything to encourage hospitals and health management units in the north-west to apply for trust status? In encouraging them to do so, he might well point out the example of a trust in my own constituency of Mid-Staffordshire. The Mental Health Foundation has increased the number of psychiatric consultants fourfold and the number of community psychiatric nurses from 12 to 58 since becoming a trust.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the benefits of trust status are becoming more evident to all. In Northern Ireland, in the first wave there were three applications, of which one is now a trust; in the second wave there were 11 applications, nine of which are now proceeding; and in the third wave, which my noble Friend Lord Arran introduced recently, four applied and four have been granted. I do not believe that it is the Government's role to try to encourage trust status as such —[Interruption.]—because the advantages are apparent to all.

Does the Minister accept that four trusts were not able to be appointed because the necessary legislation was not in place? Does he appreciate that those seeking to implement trust status have difficulty doing so when the health and social services board interferes in the arrangements? I am thinking particularly of the City hospital in my constituency, where for several years a senior board official has been seeking to rubbish the Jubilee maternity hospital, which has been giving excellent service and to which GP fund holders are glad to refer people, rather than take the advice of the Eastern health and social services board, which has said, in effect, "We shall not purchase, although your quality and price are right."

The hon. Gentleman's support for the Jubilee hospital is well known. Matters are still progressing on that front and the issue is still open for consultation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the four community units of management to which he referred have been accepted in theory as trust while waiting for the legislation to be passed; I have every confidence that it will be passed and that those units of management will become trusts before the end of this year.

How many representations has the Minister received expressing concern and fear about trust status applying to social services and hospitals in Belfast? Why is the Department afraid of obtaining views on the concept of trusts from people in Northern Ireland who work for and serve in the health and social services sector? Why is the Minister afraid of addressing the fundamental issues of trusts in Belfast in particular and in Northern Ireland in general, particularly as they apply to the social services?

My noble Friend Lord Arran is certainly addressing the issue of trusts. Indeed, had the hon. Gentleman been listening more carefully earlier he would have heard that the record on the establishment on trust status in Northern Ireland is ever increasing; they are becoming more and more popular and not one trust that has been applied for has expressed any regrets. More than that, the level of complaints after a trust has been established has dwindled to almost nothing. In other words, fears are being exploited by Opposition Members, whereas the reality is benefits to patients, which is exactly what trust status is designed to achieved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Northern Ireland industrial productivity levels.

Gross domestic product per employee in manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland in 1991 was £17,900. Over the five-year period, 1986 to 1991, manufacturing productivity in Northern Ireland increased by 18 per cent., which compares very well with the growth in manufacturing productivity of 19 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole over the same period.

Do not those very welcome figures indicate that, as manufacturing productivity improves in Northern Ireland, so Northern Ireland becomes a much better place for inward investment? Will the Minister do all that he possibly can to increase the productivity of the work force in Northern Ireland so as to attract more inward investment?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. If we are to continue to seek foreign investors investing in Northern Ireland, as well as from other parts of Europe and the United Kingdom as a whole, we need to increase productivity to the sort of level that demonstrates that the work force is first rate, that the products made are first rate and that, all in all, Northern Ireland is the best place to invest in, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Does the Minister agree that good labour relations and inward investment play a key role in Northern Ireland's recovery? What representations has he received from business men in Northern Ireland about the effects of the social chapter on their businesses?

I think it fair to say that the general consensus among business men involved in Northern Ireland activities will be that the social chapter is the disaster that we know it to be, and they recognise only too readily the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in ensuring that there was an opt-out from that disastrous policy, which, as the President of the European Commission has said time and again, has ensured that Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a paradise for foreign investment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to raise the issue of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution with Irish Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

I met the new Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, on 22 January and also on 3 February. On both occasions, constitutional issues, including that issue, were among the subjects discussed.

Dick Spring has said that it would be easier to define a nation if it were one community on two islands, rather than two communities on one island. Would not the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the Irish constitution assist greatly in discussions between the two communities and therefore assist further that possible definition?

The hon. Gentleman well knows the areas in which articles 2 and 3 present real difficulty to the constitutional parties and the Governments in reaching the objectives set out by my predecessor in March 1991. The talks, which continued during last year, achieved considerable success, but there is a long way to go. I believe that articles 2 and 3, among many other matters, call for very careful consideration in the future.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House in clear and simple terms: do he and the Government want Northern Ireland to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom?

I have made it clear, as have predecessor Administrations, that so long as the democratic will of the people living in Northern Ireland, clearly expressed, leads to their wishing to remain part of the United Kingdom, the Government wish them to remain part of the United Kingdom and, what is more, we shall honour the constitutional guarantee that has been given to them in that regard.

Does the Secretary of State agree that this is largely a propagandist issue and that the problem of Northern Ireland existed long before that constitution was introduced? Does he agree that it is normal that fundamental aspirations are included in the constitutions of most countries, but that there is no evidence of any description that articles 2 and 3 would be implemented by any form of coercion by any party in the south of Ireland? In your own constitution, the head of this state must be the head of a particular church, and bishops of that church have seats as of right in the House of Lords, but no one would argue, I think, in propaganda terms, that Britain is a sectarian society.

I shall not take up every facet of the hon. Gentleman's question. I agree with him that articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution have formed part of that constitution.only in relatively modern times—since 1937. I agree with him also that the problems of Northern Ireland have roots which go back a long way before that. That does not, however, deprive articles 2 and 3 of any substance or of any significance to the matters that all the main constitutional parties and the two Governments were addressing last year in the talks, which 1 hope will resume.

To ask the Prime Minister when he will pay an official visit to Havercroft.

I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Yorkshire among them.

Is the Prime Minister aware that miners from Havercroft, who have been blackmailed into taking redundancy payments, do not count among the 3 million unemployed? Is he further aware that if the pit at Grimesthorpe were to be closed, male unemployment in the area would be one in three? Will he today, therefore, guarantee the future of Grimesthorpe, not least because it is commercially profitable?

No one is blackmailed in the way the hon. Gentleman says. The position of Grimesthorpe, as with the other pits, will he covered in the review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18 February.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does not Britain need a national strategy to combat the evil of mass unemployment? When will the indecision, drift and the weakness come to an end? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of Her Majesty's Government in recent times been a disgrace? If he cannot give a lead to our nation, should he not go?

The hon. Gentleman is well rehearsed, but not well informed. If he had been well informed, he would have known, for example, that in a recent speech in Athens the Leader of the Opposition admitted that unemployment was a problem not only in this country but right across Europe. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that, why cannot the hon. Gentleman?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the social chapter there can be no free ride, that such benefits have to be matched by increased productivity or they will add only to unemployment and that the best way to get sustainable long-term jobs is to continue with structural reforms, particularly improving education, rather than engaging in short-term bail-outs and subsidies for unsustainable industries? Would not policies like the social chapter, increased payroll tax, a statutory minimum wage and the repeal of trade union laws—all Labour policies—add to unemployment rather than improving the situation?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There is no purpose in the Opposition saying that they care about unemployment when they are committed to policies that will put up unemployment arid keep it up. Until they drop their support for the social chapter, the minimum wage and windfall tax, they are in no position to lecture anyone about job losses.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the country will never forget that it was his Government and his Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us that unemployment was a "price well worth paying"? On the day when unemployment has reached the tragic total of 3 million, will he now publicly repudiate that heartless approach?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that we have set in place—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] We have set in place to assist people who are unemployed a comprehensive system of schemes unmatched in the history of this country and unmatched elsewhere in Europe—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."]—the training for work programme, the job clubs, the job—[Interruption.]

Order. I will not have hon. Members shouting down any other right hon. or hon. Member. I warn Members that I shall use the authority that this House has given if this continues.

I was trying to inform hon. Gentlemen, who were shouting out, of the assistance that has been put in place to help people who are currently without work to be trained and to get back in work, which I should have thought was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would wish to see done. I repeat for his benefit: the training for work schemes, the job clubs, the job interview guarantees, the business start-up schemes, the job plan workshops, the restart courses—constitute an unprecedented amount of help to deal with a problem which exists in this country and in every country in Europe.

Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that unemployment at this menacing level is not just a personal disaster for millions of honest and decent people who want to have the independence and dignity that employment can give them, but also an economic millstone around this country's neck? Does he not understand that uenmplopyment at this tragic level costs Britain £27,000 million per year and that we lose 780 million working days? Is that not economic madness as well as social tragedy?

Of course we appreciate that fact. That is why we are seeking, first, to help those who are unemployed, and also to create the circumstances to make sure that they have permanent, long-term, sustainable jobs in the future. We are determined to bring unemployment down, and we will—but with-our policies, not with the lack of policies of Opposition Members. I repeat that we have put in place the most comprehensive training programmes ever to help unemployed people. We shall be introducing new training schemes with almost half a million new training and employment places in April. In terms of getting permanent, sustainable jobs, we have brought inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years, my right hon. Friend's autumn statement put in place further policies for growth, interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years and retail sales are rising. Those are the facts which bring positive hope for the unemployed, not the empty rhetoric of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

If those schemes were of any value, if they were successful, and if the Prime Minister really cares about bringing down unemployment, why has he stood idly by and allowed it to rise in every month of his period of office? Is it not rather contemptible, on this tragic day, to be seeking to blame others and to abuse his opponents? Is it not time that he accepted the responsibilities of his office and did what the country desperately wants him to do—put bringing down unemployment at the top of our national agenda?

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say at the outset of his remarks was very revealing: if, he said, these schemes are of value. Does that explain why the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have opposed every training measure that we have put in place for unemployed people? The facts are that the Government have put in place nearly 1 million training and employment opportunities this year, and we plan to increase them by half a million in April. I would find the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern more convincing if he had just one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment. Instead, he has two bad policies. The first is the tax on excess profits: the old Labour party speaking again—they do not like profits, they want to penalise success, and they will never understand that profits fund investment and finance jobs. And now they want a training tax as well to put more people out of work. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have a word with his transport spokesman, who said of the minimum wage—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like it, but they had better listen. His transport spokesman said:

"I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that."

Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?

I sat down, Madam Speaker, because you were getting up. I will repeat the quote from the Opposition transport spokesman. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but they are going to get it. I repeat the quote from the shadow transport spokesman, who said of a national minimum wage:

"I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that."

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports showing that not only is Nissan in Sunderland exporting cars to Japan, but Vauxhall is now exporting Astra cars to Japan? Is that not a remarkable turnround in the fortunes of British car manufacturers, good for jobs and good for exports?

It most certainly is. We all recall the state of the car industry in the 1970s. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that this is welcome news for British car manufacturers, proving that they can compete with the world's best on quality, price and productivity both in this country and in exporting.

rose—

You bailed him out.

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. Time is passing.

Why does the Prime Minister always use his time to tell us what the Opposition said instead of telling us what he will do? Last night President Clinton gave his country hope through strong leadership and a clear programme for renewal. Is it not fortunate that the Prime Minister does not have to make a state of the nation address because it is clear that if he did he would have noting to say, not even, it appears, "Sorry"?

If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard a long list of action that the Government have taken. Since he did not listen, let me give him more information. The £2.5 billion spent on training measures is two and a half times as much as any previous Government spent. We had the package of measures in the autumn statement to boost the construction industry by releasing capital receipts, the assistance for manufacturing industry by introducing new capital allowances, and the extra help for exporters. The right hon. Gentleman is leader of his party. Where has he been that he knows none of this?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in the Thames-Chiltern area are reporting increased exports to the middle east, the far east and north America? Does he agree that in a world economy which is becoming more and not less competitive, permanent jobs and prosperity will depend on the enterprise and hard work of businesses like those and not on the meddlesome bureaucracy and cheap answers proposed by Opposition parties?

My hon. Friend is quite right. In a fiercely competitive world, it is only if we have the most competitive industries that we can look forward to job creation or to increasing prosperity. That is why it is necessary to get inflation down. That is why it has been necessary to get interest rates down and why the improvements in productivity which are becoming so remarkable are one of the best indications of our future prospects. They are good prospects as a result of the measures that we have taken and will continue to sustain.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

I have here a letter from the Fair Employment Commission refusing assistance to one of my constituents with regard to his complaint that he had been discriminated against by the civil service. Incidentally, the letter is signed by the public servant who suggested recently that photographs of Her Majesty should not be displayed in a public building. The clear implication of this letter is that criteria, instead of being set objectively by reference to the nature of the job, should be manipulated in order to achieve the quota—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. We now have the background.

The Fair Employment Commission described this manipulation as affording equality of opportunity. Does the Prime Minister agree that such criteria should be manipulated for the purpose of achieving the commission's job quota in every place of work?

If the hon. Gentleman had let me see the letter, I should have been able to give him a detailed reply. If he does so, I will examine the letter and respond to him in detail. As I have not seen it, the hon. Gentleman cannot have expected a reply of any sort.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after questions. This is a continuation of questions. Throughout most of the 20 years I have been here, this is the way it has been done, and I shall not change it now.