To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for 12 months or longer in Yorkshire and Humberside.

91,235.

The Minister is well aware that that figure, which I believe is the April 1993 figure, represents a considerable increase over the two years to that date. The long-term unemployed have increased from 26 to 36 per cent. of the total. He is also aware that the Government's plans for very little coal mean that the numbers are likely to increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] What specific measures is the Minister proposing to deal with the long-term unemployed in Yorkshire and Humberside?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that unemployment fell in his constituency last month by some 4 per cent., or 141 people. However, he is right to draw attention to the fact that, because we have had a long and difficult recession, our concern should be focused on the long-term unemployed, which is why the Government have announced this year an extra 600,000 differing opportunities to help those people who find themselves out of work—the long-term unemployed—back into employment as recovery continues.

To be unemployed for a year is a terrible thing. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he liaises carefully with the Department of Trade and Industry so that the regional aid package is not so distorted that even more people are left unemployed in Yorkshire and Humberside? I am fully aware that the numbers of unemployed have been decreasing in the past few months, and we all hope that that continues.

I assure my hon. Friend that we do liaise closely with the Department of Trade and Industry. I know the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in securing jobs for his constituency and for Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole, and I know that he will welcome developments such as the 700 jobs that have been created at Kimberly Clark and the 500 jobs at First Direct in Leeds. Those are a result of the success of the Government's policies, to which my hon. Friend has contributed such a great deal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to assist defence-related industries to retrain staff in non-defence-related fields.

Through the training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, a broad range of programmes are available to help people affected by changes in defence-related industries.

What help are the Government giving to those companies attempting to diversify into non defence-related markets? For instance, T. I. Dowty in my constituency is currently negotiating a merger with Messier-Bugatti of France. Will the Secretary of State press the Government to reflect the special needs of areas most affected by defence rundown in next year's local government grant settlement?

I understand that Gloucestershire training and enterprise council is involved in Dowty and has set up a job shop to advise people who are affected in any way. There is also a wide range of training opportunities.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Marconi companies in Chelmsford have paid a heavy price as a result of the peace dividend and the world recession in defence contracts? Will he join me in congratulating those companies and English Electric Valve on the efforts that they are making to diversify into non-military contract winning, to help to sustain the employment market and we hope, at a future date, to bring new people into work? Will he also ensure that the Essex training and enterprise council does all it can to help retrain those defence workers who have been made redundant, who desperately need work and must be given work as soon as possible?

First, I have already met the chairman of Essex TEC, Mr. Lawrence. I was able to have some words with him, and I look forward to further discussions. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is vital for the training and enterprise council to be involved in the way he describes. As for the second part of his question, I am happy to announce that the United Kingdom will participate fully in the Konver programme to assist regions affected by the decline in the defence industry. That will involve a total amount of about £15 million, through the European social and regional development funds.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, during the past three years, no fewer than 82,000 jobs have been lost in defence-related industries? Will he confirm that, during those three years, Tory Ministers have successively denounced Labour's proposals to shift people from defence to civilian work as ill-thought-out nonsense? Will he also confirm that if the Government had taken the Labour party's advice, many of the 82,000 people who have lost their jobs would not be on the dole but would be doing other useful work instead?

First, I am happy to be in my new post, and look forward to many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across these Dispatch Boxes. Secondly—sad to relate—he has again come to the Dispatch Box with some ill-thought-out nonsense. There is a wide range of training and retraining opportunities for people who have worked in the defence-related industries, and we will continue to ensure that resources are directed down that avenue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the effect on British productivity of the 48-hour working week directive.

The working time directive will be damaging; not as damaging as in its worst form, but sufficiently damaging and unjustified for us to seek to challenge it in the European Court.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate Ministers on their success in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government have guaranteed that there will be no compulsory time limit for working hours, and that that has been welcomed by employers throughout the European Community? [ Laughter.]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If Opposition Members, who are chuckling, had had their way, while Taiwan and Japan were loading up ships with consumer goods, in Britain we would have been switching off the lights.

Coming back to switching off the lights, does the Minister accept that an industry in the United Kingdom that has had a productivity record second to none—the coal industry—has had that record thrown in its face by the closure of half the industry? Is not the threat to productivity in the country not the 48-hour week directive but Government policy?

Manufacturing productivity in Britain has led the way in Europe. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the coal industry and other industries have to be competitive. Labour costs in Europe grew at a rate of 4 per cent. a year throughout the 1980s. That compares with a growth in Japan of zero per cent. throughout the 1980s. Competitiveness is the name of the game, and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have not always supported the policy changes needed in the coal industry to achieve competitiveness.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recent figures from the German motor industry association show that manufacturing costs for cars in Britain are some two thirds of those in Germany? That is why many German companies are now sourcing from Great Britain for their components. Does he agree that to adopt any directives, particularly the social chapter, would undermine Britain's competitive position, as it is presently undermining the position of many countries in Europe?

I could not agree more. The flexible labour policies that we pioneered in the 1980s helped to make our car industry such a success. We are exporting British cars to Japan. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Japan. When the departing chairman of Mercedes Benz warns that the products will no longer say "Made in West Germany", or "Made in Germany", but "Made by Daimler-Benz" because the costs of manufacturing have risen so high in Germany, alarm bells should be ringing throughout Europe among those socialists who still wish to go ahead with the social chapter, which is making industry uncompetitive.

Given what the Minister said about competitiveness, how can he explain the fact that, in the 1993 world competitiveness report, the United Kingdom had slipped from 13th place to 19th place? That would seem to be the opposite of what the Minister is saying. Is it not grotesque that, when we have officially 3 million unemployed in Britain today, all the Government can do is go to Europe and suggest that those in work should work even longer hours?

It is extraordinary to be lectured by the hon. Lady about improving Britain's competitiveness, when on every occasion she has supported those who have argued for measures that would add to our labour costs and reduce our competitiveness.

Does my hon. Friend agree that unemployment is the major economic issue facing the European Community, and that we should be giving business men greater flexibility to export and to create more jobs and not to destroy jobs?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to persuade our colleagues in Europe in Copenhagen of the importance of putting the emphasis on competitiveness. Europe is not an island; unless it embraces the arguments that we won in three successive general elections in Britain, jobs will he lost and the numbers of unemployed will increase. That is the lesson of the past few years. Our arguments are now being taken on board by our partners in Europe. Only the Labour party 3 s still stuck in the time-warp of the early 1980s.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people claiming unemployment benefit in the past five years have switched to receipt of invalidity benefit.

Relatively few.

Has not leaning on people to take sickness or invalidity benefit been one of a number of devices by which the Government have managed to massage downward the unemployment figures? Is there any truth in the suggestion that staff in jobcentres receive some incentive or bonus for reducing the figures? Can the Secretary of State tell us about that please?

I do not know why Labour keeps trying to peddle such untrue accusations, particularly when they have been categorically denied in press releases issued by the key individuals involved—Mr. Fogden of the Employment Service and Mr. Stibbard, chief statistician at the Department of Employment. Mr. Fogden said:

"There is absolutely no truth in the accusation that computer failures or pressure to move people on to sickness benefit are responsible for the fall in unemployment."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not so much a question of the benefits that people receive as of the help that they need to get back to work? Do not the Government have a good record of helping people with disabilities to get back into jobs?

I could not agree more, because that is a key area. I just wish that, instead of messing around with statistics and accusing the Government of allegedly fiddling them, Labour Members concentrated on the fact that it is not an argument about statistics. Every one of the statistics is a case of human difficulty faced by the individual and his or her family. The sooner that the Opposition focus on that the better. The only fiddling with the figures is coming from the Opposition. They are fiddling with figures while the economy turns. It is about time that they started to recognise the truth of the present situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of training and enterprise councils and further education colleges on the training of school leavers.

The precise arrangements for co-ordination are decided locally. However, TECs and further education colleges operate within a framework of contractual relationships in respect of the training of school leavers. This is reinforced by partnership arrangements among the colleges, local schools, the careers service and TECs.

Is it not time that the Government took some initiative? School leavers denied discretionary grants because of restrictions on local government expenditure find that they have to report to TECs for training and are then sent on the same courses. Is it not time that the Government stopped that administrative nightmare and allowed school leavers to continue training under local government auspices, supported by TECs? When will the Minister do something about tidying up that area?

The facts speak for themselves. The current system works extremely well—particularly at the hon. Gentleman's own TEC in Wakefield. In the latest month, only four young people in the 16-to-18-year-old category are still waiting for an offer after eight weeks. Therefore, it appears that the training arrangements are working extremely well.

Will my hon. Friend use to the full the powers that the Government have in relation to training and enterprise council corporate plans, to ensure that they do not relegate to a low priority the training of disabled school leavers, whose potential ought to be valued for humanitarian and economic reasons?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable number of Government initiatives to promote training and employment opportunities for the disabled in general and for young people. The most recent notable initiative was access to work. I share my hon. Friend's concern.

If the training schemes are working comparatively well, as the Minister claims, why is it that only one third of youth trainees obtain a vocational qualification, between 30 and 40 per cent. of young people fail to complete further education courses, and 16 to 19-year-olds in Britain do worse than most comparable advanced industrial countries? The Government, who have been in power for 14 years, have failed our young people. Is it not time that they stopped using youth unemployment as a political football, and did something practical for the generation that they are losing?

I find that a trifle rich, coming from a party which has consistently opposed all the training initiatives that this Government have implemented. The majority of youth trainees get into a job, transfer to another course or have another positive outcome. That is a reasonable measure. What chance would they have under Opposition policies, which basically give no guarantee and the dole?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives from the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council to discuss delivery of training programmes.

I met the acting chairman of the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council two weeks ago, with my hon. Friend.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is one of the smallest training and enterprise councils in the country, the Isle of Wight TEC holds its own among the giants in the country? Does he understand that, as the Isle of Wight does not have assisted area status, unlike most of Scotland and Wales, the island has to depend heavily on its TEC—rather more so than similar areas?

I recognise that my hon. Friend has argued vigorously for assisted area status for the Isle of Wight, but he will recognise that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the proposals made by him are now with the European Commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in the west midlands.

In May 1993, on the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 282,300 unemployed claimants in the west midlands region.

Does the Minister accept that those figures are disgraceful, and that they show that the west midlands has a worse unemployment record than the national average on most indicators, including youth, female and long-term unemployment? Is she aware that 50 per cent. of those unemployed in the Bartley Green ward in my constituency have been out of work for more than a year? Is she further aware that there are 35½ people chasing every job?

Does not the hon. Member think that it would be better if he told his constituents the good news about both his constituency and the west midlands? Does he not believe that he should draw his constituents' attention to the flourishing motor industry—so important to the west midlands—and to the fact that unemployment in his constituency, and not just the local area, has fallen by 2 per cent. since last month? Does not he feel that that would be a positive, kinder and more humane message than preaching gloom and doom?

Does my hon. Friend agree that the west midlands can benefit from the rise in motor car production in Britain when it is falling dramatically in Germany? Does she agree that unemployment in the west midlands will suffer if we adopt a national minimum wage, or if we ever adopted the job-destroying principles of the social chapter, as advocated by the Opposition?

I have pleasure in confirming that just about every Opposition policy would make it harder, not easier, for employers to employ. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the motor industry and to the rise in vehicle registrations by 8·9 per cent. and in car production by 23·8 per cent. Why does not the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) take that message to his constituents and try to give the unemployed some hope?

If the Minister has finished ranting for a moment, may I ask her to reflect on a simple truth? Even in the great depression of the 1930s, the west midlands sustained employment in manufacturing industry, and even took unemployed people from other more depressed parts of the country, but under the Government in the 1980s, there was a collapse of engineering employment in the west midlands. Does she blame the workers or the trade unions for this, or does she know—as I and most people in the west midlands know—that the real cause is a Government of unique economic and industrial incompetence?

I was under the impression that in the 1980s we were still suffering from the problems that we inherited from the Labour Government in the 1970s—[Interruption.] However, I am happy to talk about peaks —[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not want to hear about this, but they are going to hear it whether they like it or not. If we are to talk about peaks in the 1980s, perhaps we should point out that in the west midlands there has been a substantial fall in unemployment since that peak, due to the policies of the Government and the revitalisation of the motor industry, none of which would have happened under Labour policies not only of a national minumum wage but of hedging and prescribing for employment instead of getting on and creating it.

In welcoming my hon. Friend to her position at the Department of Employment, may I ask whether she has compared the figures for Japanese-owned motor car companies in Japan, America and mainland Europe with the figures for the United Kingdom? Has she noticed that such companies are cutting production everywhere but in the United Kingdom? What does that tell my hon. Friend about the conditions for manufacturing industry in Britain compared with the rest of the world?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks of welcome, which were noticeably lacking from the Opposition Front Bench. Of course my hon. Friend is right. The inward investment that Britain is experiencing, compared with the difficulties being experienced elsewhere, stands as factual proof of the worth of the Government's policies. I should like to hear the Opposition welcome that inward investment instead of brushing it aside.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage membership of trade unions.

It is for trade unions themselves to encourage union membership by demonstrating that they can provide effective services and that they have the ability to adapt to the needs and aspirations of individual employees in the modern working environment.

We all expected a reply of that nature from the Minister. Will he turn his attention to the Economic League, which has ceased its activities after 73 years of lying and sneering about trade unionists to discourage activity in the workplace'? Will he find out what happened to the records of the Economic League and will he put an end to discrimination against people in the work force on the grounds of their real or supposed political opinions?

I have no responsibility for the Economic League, but I gather that the hon. Lady's first attempt at a question was to invite the Government to say what their plans were to discourage trade union membership. I am sure that she will join me in recognising that the reforms that we carried out in the 1980s made trade unions far more willing to consider the interests of their membership and gave the membership far more control over the trade unions. That was a welcome step forward.

The worst example of trade union coercion was in the 1970s when people were forced to join trade unions against their will. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest disincentive to joining a trade union is the link between the trade union movement and the Labour party?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The trade union movement would be much better if it disengaged from the Labour party and the Labour party would be much better if it had the guts, the power and the ability to disengage itself from the trade union movement.

Do not the Government actively discourage trade unionism? Did not the Government ban trade unions at Government communications headquarters and change the trade union Bill now before the House to allow employers to bribe their employees to give up trade union membership? Do not those actions speak louder than any mealy-mouthed words from the Minister?

No, it is not true that the Government made an amendment to the trade union Bill to allow employers to bribe people not to be members of a trade union. That is against the law and will continue to be against the law. It is true that some people choose not to have their terms and conditions negotiated by collective bargaining arrangements, and the Government believe that they should be free to make that choice while remaining members of a trade union. There are a million trade union members whose terms and conditions are not negotiated by collective bargaining and they must be rather puzzled by the Labour party's position, which is to tell them that their trade union membership is worthless.

Will the Minister commend to the rest of the United Kingdom the practice which applies in Northern Ireland whereby trade unionists who pay their political contribution are denied the right to join the British Labour party?

My responsibilities do not extend to Northern Ireland, but I will happily draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many months, since May 1979, the northern region has had the highest regional unemployment rate in mainland Britain.

I regret, in each month.

For those who miseed the Minister's reply, she said that in each month since May 1979 the northern region has had the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Is the Minister not ashamed of her Government's record? What message does she believe that it conveys to the 168,000 people currently unemployed in the northern region, who lack nothing in the way of skill or enterprise but apparently everything in the way of active Government support? Does she not realise that without new investment, the weekly haemorrhage of job losses and training cuts will continue unabated and her Government will stand guilty of simply writing off the north?

The way to write off the north would be to deny all that is happening there. It would be to deny the inward investment and the fact that it has 17 per cent. of Japanese manufactures in this country. It would be to deny that unemployment in the north now and last month fell much faster than unemployment nationally. It would be to fail to point to the vacancies that are being filled and to the substantial training programmes. I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his hon: Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden): why will he not bring hope instead of misery to the unemployed?

Will my hon. Friend understand that the overall unemployment figures in the north cover wide differences? Will she take a particular interest in the situation in west Cumbria, which will be affected by yesterday's announcement of a delay in the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? In itself, that is welcome in that it will ensure that when the plant eventually opens it will be safe, but in the short run it will inevitably give rise to serious unemployment. Will the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment take a great interest in the problems of west Cumbria?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will take that interest. I agree with what he says about the long-term prospects. THORP is a major example of inward investment, with some £1·6 billion advanced by overseas customers, and it will support 3,000 permanent jobs. That is the sort of message of hope that I was endeavouring to bring to Opposition Members and I have pleasure in telling my right hon. Friend that I will keep in touch with him on this issue.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Blyth Valley over the past few years there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in the number of young people between the ages of 18 and 25 on the unemployment register? When will she and other Ministers get on their bikes and go up there and create some jobs in the north east instead of giving us waffle from the Dispatch Box?

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if inward investment, increasing vacancies and falling trends in unemployment are waffle, then his constituents want waffle.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the EC's plans to introduce statutory works councils.

The Government believe that statutory works councils would greatly damage the United Kingdom's competitiveness, and if such proposals are made we will veto them.

At a time when European countries are in danger of pricing themselves out of world markets, is it not the height of folly for the European Commission to be proposing statutory works councils, which would be costly to industry, bureaucratic and wholly unnecessary? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative Government will resist those proposals to the bitter end? Does not industry support the Tories because the Tories support policies which benefit and help industry?

I give my hon. Friend the unqualified assurance that he seeks. At the last Social Affairs Council in Luxembourg, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I made it clear to our fellow Ministers that the most important item on the agenda of the European Community is the reduction of unemployment, which is rising in almost every European Community country except the United Kingdom. That will be achieved by introducing measures which improve competitiveness and not by the Commission's proposals.

Why is any idea of co-operation in the workplace anathema to the Conservative party? Surely productivity and morale will improve if the work force is not subject to authoritarian rules and macho management. Why do the Government always oppose, for spurious cost reasons, proposals designed to secure co-operation between the work force and management and to ensure that workers have positive rights in the workplace?

The Government have pioneered many innovative and imaginative forms of co-operation in the workplace, but we shall not allow co-operation to be introduced in legislative form. That would be highly restrictive, but it is what statutory works councils would introduce. We would then be back to the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s. I know that Opposition Members enjoyed those days because they gave power to a few trade union leaders, but the vast majority of people in this country do not want to return to that form of legislated co-operation. We want the voluntary partnership that has become so evident under this Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some multinationals have estimated the cost of the proposal at between £500,000 and £1 million per year? Would that not be bad for business, bad for Britain and bad for Europe as a whole in the world market?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like each European Community proposal to be tested first for its effect on the competitiveness of the European Community. We need such a test to prevent the introduction of proposals which will merely further undermine competitiveness and result in further job losses.

If the Tory party's policies in the past 14 years have been the acme of competitiveness, why does Britain have the second biggest trade deficit in Europe and the biggest trade deficit of any European Community country with the rest of the world?

All right. If the hon. Gentleman wants facts, let him listen to these: inflation is at its lowest for 30 years, interest rates are lower in this country than anywhere else in the whole of the European Community, manufacturing output is up by more than 2 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 7·8 per cent., retail sales up by 3 per cent., consumer spending up by 2·3 per cent., car registrations up by 7·5 per cent., housing starts up by 17 per cent., and—the most chilling factor for the Labour party—strikes at their lowest level for 70 years. That is the record on which we fight.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of redundancies which have occurred in the aerospace industry since 1 January 1992; and if he will make a statement.

The information is not available.

Is the Minister not concerned at the fact that tens of thousands of the most skilled workers in our biggest industry—British Aerospace—are losing their jobs? This must be a tragic waste. Does the hon. Gentleman know that at the British Aerospace works in Broughton in my constituency more than 1,000 people have lost their jobs in the past year? Will he investigate the proposal by Raytheon to buy Corporate Jets from British Aerospace, bearing in mind the fact that Corporate Jets has lost 269 jobs in my constituency? Will he attempt to secure from the new company a guarantee that my constituents will have more than three years' work if it buys from British Aerospace?

It is true that the aerospace industry has been hit by the downturn in the world market. The 1980s saw growth of about 36 per cent. in sales. With the skills that the British aerospace industry has, I am sure that we can achieve that again in the 1990s. The question that the hon. Gentleman has put to me is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman has worked long and hard in the interests of his constituents who are involved in executive jet production. I understand that British Aerospace, in considering the sale of the company at Broughton, intends to secure a guaranteed work period of about three years as part of the arrangement. The sale has been referred to the Director General of Fair Trading, and I cannot say any more at this stage. I can, however, promise the hon. Gentleman that both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are very conscious of the importance of retaining jobs in this successful industry, which is vital to Britain.

To ask the Prime Minister what is his most recent information from UNICEF about the alleged infringements of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child involving malnutrition and infant mortality in Iraq.

No such information has been received from the United Nations Children's Fund, but we remain in close touch with United Nations agencies about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Has the Prime Minister been briefed by the Foreign Secretary and by Sir Michael Burton about the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and Tim Llewellyn to the paediatric hospital in Baghdad, where we saw lines of infants with swollen tummies and swollen private parts expiring as a result of malnutrition-related diseases such as marasmus? Does the west have any obligation to do something for injured infants who are without pharmaceuticals or medicines as a result of the missile attack on Baghdad? Would it not be wise, for reasons that I gave to Sir Michael Burton and the Foreign Secretary, at least to hear what the Iraqi people have to say?

I am, of course, aware of the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian concerns and of his discussions and his report to the Foreign Secretary. However, I think that he is misguided in the way in which he attributes responsibility. To be frank with the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that it is not the responsibility of external countries that the difficulties in Iraq, which led to the devastating situation, have been brought about. We very much wish that this were not the situation. However, it is, and over recent months we have done what we could to put it right. With regard to the attack, I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman as the matter was widely discussed in the House yesterday.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of injustice about the fact that, on the only occasion this Session when I have the good fortune to be able to ask him a question on television, the BBC is showing Wimbledon on both channels? Would riot the watching public be immensely encouraged to learn that we are today considering the Criminal Justice Bill and that the police are going to make lighting crime and protecting the public their top priority, unencumbered by unnecessary paperwork?

With no disrespect to my hon. Friend's question, I think that that is the best decision by the BBC that I have heard for some time—game, set and match to the BBC, I think. I agree with the substance of my hon. Friend's question. What most people in this country wish to ensure is that our police service is doing the job we most wish to see it do, that is to say, not pushing paper but catching criminals.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is three months to the day since the House debated the Government's White Paper on the coal industry? Does he recollect that the public, the press and some of his own Back Benchers were led to believe that 12 pits would be saved by that White Paper? Why is it that, only three months later, three of the 12 pits face closure?

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there have been severe geological problems at some of those pits, resulting in an excessive level of cost. British Coal has talked to the men about the problems. I understand that at Rufford the men voted to close the pit when the existing face is exhausted and at Markham they agreed to immediate closure. British Coal is still committed to the market-testing exercise.

Does the Prime Minister not understand what is happening to the miners—that if they do not vote for closure they lose redundancy payments? Does he not understand what is happening in the market? British Coal is now offering coal at a knock-down price which would give the consumer much cheaper electricity than he or she could get from any other source. If the two privatised generators still will not buy at that price, does that not prove that the market is rigged against coal and that, if it goes on, pit after pit will close and will shall lose a vital industry?

The reason for taking the decisions on coal some months ago was to make sure that there is a viable industry that can continue in the future. It will be a smaller industry than once it was, for it has been shrinking in size year on year over the past 30 years. That is a fact of life which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I and every hon. Member well understand. It is the market for coal which will determine the size of the industry. The Government have made it clear that they are willing to provide a subsidy to help the deep mining industry secure supplementary coal to generators at world prices. That was and is the position.

Does the Prime Minister not remember clearly that the House was led to believe that 12 pits would be saved as a result of the White Paper? Why does he not come clean and admit that the White Paper was a fraud and is now exposed as a fraud? Is it not a perfect example of the style of the Prime Minister and his Government that they produced a White Paper for 36 hours' publicity, which has not survived for three months in the real world?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps have observed what Mr. Scargill had to say at lunchtime when he said:

"The Labour leadership is more interested in opinion polls and images rather than principles and real policies."

During his busy day, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read the letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in TheLondon Literary Review, in which he gives inaccurate medical information on the state of child health in Iraq? Will the Prime Minister remind the hon. Gentleman that United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 of August and September 1991 authorised Iraq to export $16 billion worth of oil to buy medicines over a six-month period but that those arrangements have never been implemented?

I have not seen that particular letter, but my hon. Friend is quite right about the proposition that has been available to Iraq for well over a year whereby it could export oil and, in return, have medical and other equipment. The Government of Iraq—Saddam Hussein—chose not to take up that option. For that reason, he is primarily to blame for the present difficulties in treating people who are sick and ill in Iraq.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House and to the many pensioners lobbying Parliament today that the Conservatives have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on tax relief to the wealthiest members of Lloyd's, while continuing to persist with their policy of putting VAT on gas and electricity? Does he appreciate that that is typical of the present Government?

It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the position. The fact is that the success of Conservative policies over the years has enabled pensioners' incomes to increase by 30 per cent.—37 per cent. net of housing costs—since 1979. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps remind himself, and tell others, which party tried to cut the Christmas bonus, cut spending on the national health service, failed to uprate pensions and let inflation get out of control and wreck the savings of millions of pensioners.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

I share my right hon. Friend's approval that Wimbledon is monopolising all channels, but, in the context of the necessary review of public spending, may I ask for an assurance that there will be a rigorous clamp-down on all those who are claiming benefit on fraudulent grounds at the expense of those most worthy of help in society, to whom benefits should be targeted?

I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. I assure him that the Government will honour their pledges to uprate state retirement and child benefits and so protect the most vulnerable in society. I also assure him that those who try to defraud the benefits system will find it increasingly difficult to do so. They will come up against a Government anti-fraud policy which expects to net savings of nearly £1 billion this year. We want those resources so as to make sure that they are available for those who need them most. I make no apology for protecting taxpayers from those who seek to abuse the system.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

In view of the revelations at the trial of Christopher Clunis, who stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito, will the Prime Minister accept that although most people suffering from schizophrenia are not dangerous, the failure of the Government's care in the community policy means that dangerous mentally ill people are walking the streets? What does he intend to do about that, and will he now order a public inquiry into the case and its implications for community care, as requested by Mr. Zito's widow?

The hon. Lady may not know it, but the care in the community policy has been a cross-party policy in the House for many years. Everyone is deeply sorry to hear about that tragic case, and I have deep sympathy for Mrs. Zito and the other relatives concerned. Nevertheless, I am sure that our community care policy is right for the patients concerned. It is right to encourage them generally to lead as independent a life as possible away from large-scale institutions. To that end, we now devote spending of more than £2 billion per year, and we have increased it substantially to ensure that the resources devoted to it are able to meet the problems which exist.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only leading country in Europe experiencing economic recovery? Will he further confirm that while other countries in the European Community languish in recession, our economy has low inflation, falling unemployment, low wage settlements and the highest growth rate in Europe? Does he agree that that is good news for British business men and exporters and will help the nation to get roaring forward again economically?

I believe that it is good news for everybody, with the possible exception of some Opposition Members for whom good news is extremely bad news. Britain was the first country in Europe to go into the recession; it is now among the first to emerge. Although conditions abroad throughout the Community may be difficult for some time, the Community itself and others are now forecasting that we shall have the highest growth rate in the Community this year and the highest growth rate again next year.

Have Her Majesty's Government given any commitment to the Labour party's proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland, as set out in the documents published this morning?

The first I heard of the apparent proposals by the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland was when I read that astonishing story in The Guardian this morning. I have no means of knowing whether The Guardian story is right or wrong. I hope that it is wrong, but, as Opposition Members seem to have questions planted upon them by The Guardian, it does not seem unreasonable to me that they may plant their policies upon The Guardian themselves. I can only say that that policy, if it is the policy of the Labour party, is a recipe for disaster. If it is true, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will request the resignation of his spokesman this day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the obligation to tell the people of Northern Ireland whether or not that is the policy of the Labour party.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on literally flying the flag in support of Manchester's Olympic bid? Does he agree that the bid is bringing more money, more jobs and more prestige to an area of this country which is already world class?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that hosting the Olympic games in Manchester would be good for the north-west, good for Britain and good for the Olympics. That is why the Government are determined to do all that they can to back Manchester's bid to bring the Olympics here for the millennium. We have provided full support for that bid. I was delighted to welcome the International Olympic Committee to Downing street yesterday. I shall be meeting the president of the IOC next month, and I look forward to going to Monte Carlo to help to promote the bid in September. The Olympic games which mark the year 2000 will have a special significance and I want to see those games here in Britain—in Manchester.