To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the Warwickshire travel-to-work area currently; and what was the figure in 1990–91.

The latest available estimates are for September 1991, when there were 77,200 employees in the Warwick travel-to-work area.

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Does she agree that one of the reasons why the Warwick and, indeed, Warwickshire figures are so good is the highly motivated, well-trained and adaptable work force? That applies especially to the constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth, as my hon. Friends will know. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Rugby and Kenilworth area is part of the midlands golden triangle and attracts a steady stream of new employers, creating new wealth and new employment? [Interruption.]

Order. That is setting a rather bad pace for questions.

I have pleasure in confirming each one of my hon. Friend's statements. I also have pleasure in confirming his comments on Rugby and Kenilworth, where unemployment has fallen by 12 per cent. over the past year.

Would it not have been a more honest question and a more honest answer if the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) had gone back to 1979 figures and if, in speaking up for the skills of the work force in the Coventry and Warwickshire area, he had mentioned that that area has been decimated by the Government's inability to have a manufacturing policy?

I am sure that, in this period of peace between our parties, the hon. Gentleman will wish me to give him good news on which he can then congratulate the Government. May I first point out that fair comparisons between work forces in employment should be from peak to peak or trough to trough and not from the one to the other? Secondly, may I give the hon. Gentleman the good news about the creation of new jobs by Jaguar, Peugeot and Land-Rover and the jobs that that has brought to the hon. Gentleman's region? In this new period of peace, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman congratulating us on that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has to improve the accuracy of employment statistics.

Government statisticians have taken a number of initiatives in recent years, but I am not aware of any new proposals.

Does the Minister recall that at the last Employment Question Time, in answer to a similar question, I was told that the Minister agreed with paragraph 78 of the Select Committee's report of 10 February which concerned my question, as though every hon. Member could be expected to know every sentence of every paragraph of every Select Committee report? Will the Minister lead by example today and tell me whether he agrees with the final sentence of paragraph 112 of the same report?

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question as well as I do.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when there are more people unemployed there are more people on the register and when there are fewer people unemployed there are fewer people on the register, that that is an accurate reflection and that ours are by far the best figures in Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The good news is that, however we measure unemployment, it is falling in Europe in only one other country apart from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has led the way because of the success of the supply side reforms that the Government have carried out, though not always with the support of Opposition Members.

Will the Minister confirm that his Department's labour force survey shows that the total number of people who want a job is really 5 million if one uses a four-week test? In view of the difference between that view and the official claimant counts which are published on a monthly basis, is the Minister prepared to co-operate fully with the inquiry set up by the president of the Royal Statistical Society and to agree, as Labour will, with the recommendations so that we can have a fair account of unemployment in this country rather than the fiddled figures that we get each month?

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should take that view. He will know that we measure unemployment in two ways. The first relates to people claiming benefit, which is the unemployment count. The other is the internationally recognised International Labour Organisation definition. Both figures are broadly the same. If the hon. Gentleman is going to talk about 5 million unemployed, I wonder whether that is official Opposition policy. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, are they likely to be announcing on their first day in office that there are 5 million unemployed? I think not. Other Opposition Members have accepted the ILO figures. It would be better to recognise that the figures are correct and to concentrate on the good news that unemployment is falling.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to develop further training opportunities for young people.

The introduction of a new modern apprenticeship scheme and other measures.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that brief answer. Does he recognise that the concept of apprenticeships is often thought of as purely a matter for the mechanical and engineering sectors whereas there are many other sectors to which it could be applied? Will my right hon. Friend stress that fact in his development of the concept?

Yes, I will. In fact, my hon. Friend's own training and enterprise council—Hawtec—is, among other training and enterprise councils, involved in the preparation of a prototype for the retail industry. There are a number of other prototyping arrangements for modern apprenticeships, including information technology, plumbing and marine engineering. Those sectors cover a range of new areas which have not hitherto had apprenticeships.

What fresh proposals does the Secretary of State have for the many new graduates who will emerge from university in a few weeks, young and eager to work?

I am delighted that between 1990 and 1996 the number of individuals graduating from our universities will double. I also take pride in the fact that the rate of unemployment among graduates is half the national average. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates in Europe. There will be increasing opportunities for our graduates, who will share in the increasing growth in the economy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision that equal opportunities for disabled people —and, most importantly, young disabled people—should be on the agenda for his meetings with training and enterprise councils has been extensively welcomed? Is he further aware that the Employers Forum on Disability and the Confederation of British Industry are looking forward to consultations with him on policies to end discrimination in training and employment and that they want the Government to take the lead in updating the legislation in that area? Will he press forward with that process?

I agree that the present quota system is not effective in removing discrimination against disabled people. We are introducing a new access to work scheme, but we must go further and introduce proposals to end discrimination where it affects disabled people.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that £103 million has been cut from the budget for adult and youth training? Given the Government's record of shoddy, low-cost training which has failed the nation in the past, why should we believe that the modern apprenticeships will be any different?

The hon. Gentleman is about the only person to have voiced that view. I have been overwhelmed with favourable responses to the new modern appren-ticeship scheme. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was quoting a significant underspend in youth training. The introduction of a new modern apprenticeship scheme and the credits that accompany it, together with a budget of £1.25 billion over the next three years, means that we have the potential to fill the skills gap in the economy at the much-needed technician, craft and supervisory levels.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are currently spending about £2.8 billion per year on training and enterprise—two and a half times the amount spent in 1979 in real terms? Is that not one reason why last year some 1.4 million people were able to return to work, 24 per cent. of whom had been unemployed for more than six months?

My hon. Friend quotes a number of very important statistics. We are spending much more now in real terms than was spent under the Labour Government in 1979. The important thing is to ensure that that spending is properly targeted. That is why we are introducing new measures which I believe are capturing the support of a wide cross-section of the community. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will rethink his position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of youth training and training for work trainees found work on completion of their courses at the latest date for which figures are available.

Sixty-six per cent. of youth training and 36 per cent. of training for work trainees were in employment after completing their training.

Why do so many young people go straight from inadequate training courses to the dole without decent qualifications or credits? Should there not be investment in skills training, together with temporary employment subsidies to promote the creation of jobs? It is not only the young people who suffer—the whole economy suffers by not being able to use their talents.

Some 66 per cent. of those who complete youth training gain a qualification or a credit. It does not follow that those who do not do so necessarily go into unemployment. Some go on to further training and others to further education. Those facts must be remembered. On the hon. Gentleman's point about spending on youth training, it is worth spelling out that the forthcoming budget actually includes a higher spend than currently, despite the fact that larger numbers of young people stay on at school.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the east midlands region unemployment is falling and vacancies are increasing, bringing real hope to young people looking for jobs? Is she aware that in the Southern Derbyshire training and enterprise council area, which covers my constituency of Erewash, young people eligible for youth training schemes are getting a place without waiting?

I am delighted to confirm my hon. Friend's latter point. Not only is it true in her constituency; it is now true in the vast majority of TEC areas. The number waiting more than eight weeks for a YT place has dropped from just under 5,000 last year to 138.

Is not the problem questionable certification? I have yet another falsified national vocational qualifications certificate fraudulently produced by JHP Training. May we now have the National Audit Office independent inquiry for which I have repeatedly called and to which I have offered to provide evidence, as against the in-house inquiry that the hon. Lady wants to set up when clearly her own Department has been totally discredited?

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question because he came to see me yesterday and I explained it to him then. I explained clearly to him yesterday that it is the view of the National Audit Office that it is appropriate for us to conduct an internal inquiry. That inquiry would be greatly assisted if the hon. Gentleman would make the evidence available to us, as he said in an early-day motion that he would.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from industry and trade unions in support of the proposed modern apprenticeship scheme.

Many messages of support.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in his discussions with the trade unions they have indicated that their demand for a minimum wage would not extend to this scheme if it were implemented? Does that not show that the trade unions know that a minimum wage would destroy jobs in the way that the trade union movement destroyed apprenticeships in the 1960s and 1970s, and that the minimum wage, as the policy of the Labour party, should best be dropped altogether?

There is an atmosphere of lack of enthusiasm for any proposals for a statutory minimum wage, even extending to our colleagues on the Labour Benches, who have understood that such an idea would not be popular at present. I do not believe that it would be popular because it would strike at the heart of a scheme such as the new modern apprenticeship scheme. Moreover, in the past 15 years young people's earnings have increased in real terms right across the spectrum.

In the many messages that the Secretary of State has received from employers, what exactly has the Engineering Employers Federation said to him about the new modern apprenticeship scheme? When we spoke to the EEF the other day, it was markedly lukewarm, feeling that we were probably going down the road towards yet another underfunded gimmick. What exactly is the view of the Engineering Employers Federation to the proposed new apprenticeship scheme?

When I met the EEF on Monday, its view was very positive. I hope that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not widely held in the EEF. It is now very much up to employers to develop the scheme. We have not laid down a statutory Government scheme: we have asked employers to come forward with prototypes that they believe will be successful in delivering at NVQ level 3—equivalent to two A-Levels—the skills that they believe are necessary in their industries. In my experience, the engineering industry is one of the most important sectors behind the new modern apprenticeship scheme so far.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of industry is enthusiastic about the scheme, believing that the only way forward to provide the skilled craftspeople of the future is through apprenticeship schemes? Is he aware of the importance of electrical skills to the film industry, for example? An example of that industry's excellence is the lighting provided at the Palace of Westminster for the state opening of Parliament.

I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One of the prototypes for the new modern apprenticeship scheme is coming from the electrical installation engineering sector and I am delighted about that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the result of the Government's scrapping of the 20 statutory training boards and their statutory levies was a reduction of more than 150,000 apprenticeships? Industry did not invest in apprentices. Has not the time arrived to adopt the principle of a statutory training levy? Has not the problem with training in Britain been the lack of adequate finances to produce the skills required, as industry does not do this voluntarily?

I hope that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics he will recognise that one good feature of a pretty tough recession has been the way in which expenditure on training by employers has held up extremely well. Employers now invest some £20,000 million on training. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a particular problem—although I disagree with him about its causes—in filling the much-needed skills level at NVQ level 3 through a new modern apprenticeship system. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have his thoughts about how the new prototypes can be developed, since I am open to argument as to how best the scheme can be taken forward.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the enormous increase in spending on academic training through the Department for Education, the balance must be redressed by putting more money into training for work, particularly in counties such as Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset, where the council has slashed the discretionary grant for people going on to schemes which are job related?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I should like to see a substantial increase in workplace training. We must deliver opportunities to young people leaving school not just to go down the traditional academic route, but to see exciting opportunities in the new modern apprenticeship scheme. I very much hope that there will be successful vocational training, particularly in specific new areas and in new industries, to deliver those much-needed skills in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the changes in the number of men employed in each standard planning region since June 1979.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I will arrange for the table of information requested to be published in the Official Report.

I am sorry that the Minister could not see fit to give figures which have been given on previous occasions when I have been lucky enough to ask this question.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at his question, he will find that he asked for the figures for each region of the United Kingdom, not for the United Kingdom. He is right about Wales, but he could have pointed to East Anglia where employment figures have gone up. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and others would welcome the fact that employment is rising and that in Britain we have a higher percentage of our population in work than most other European countries.

In the context of the figures, does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is very good indeed in the north-west? Does that not show that this recovery, unlike previous ones, is manufacturing and export-led, rather than consumer and service-led?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that in recent months unemployment has been falling in every region of the United Kingdom. That is good news, and it is because of the success of the Government's policies of getting inflation down and creating conditions in which business can thrive and prosper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be able to benefit from the new apprenticeship scheme in each of its first three years.

More than 40,000 a year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. Will modern apprenticeship scheme places be available in smaller firms such as Mechtric Engineering, which employs 20 highly skilled engineers, designers and technicians in Castle Point? Would apprenticeship places be appropriate in a company such as Mechtric, bearing in mind that this week it celebrates its silver jubilee, the award of its BS 5750 certificate and the fact that it exports the world-beating 7150 material testing machine?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mechtric Engineering on the trio of achievements that he set out. He is right that engineering is one of the key areas. I am delighted to say that I have already been made aware that there are advanced arrangements for prototypes not only in electrical installation engineering, but in engineering construction and manufacture and marine engineering. Many other sectors are already lining up to start the new modern apprenticeship scheme next year and I am delighted about that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that President Clinton and his advisers are looking not to Britain as the model to follow, but to the Germans, because they believe that the German universal apprenticeship scheme will provide the necessary platform for a modern economy? What steps is he taking to link national vocational qualifications to a more universal apprenticeship scheme?

On the first point, when I attended the recent jobs conference in Detroit I found considerable interest, not only on the part of the United States but on that of our German colleagues in G7, in our new modern apprenticeship scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the rate of unemployment has changed since January 1993.

Unemployment has fallen by 240,000 or 0.8 percentage points since January 1993.

Can any other European country boast such a record? Is the rate of unemployment in Britain lower pr higher than the European average? Are not there more people at work in Britain than in Germany, France, Spain or Italy? Does not that record reflect on Government—

Order. I am empowered to ask the Minister to answer only one question. I hope that hon. Members will take that to heart. Perhaps the Secretary of State can have a stab at answering a couple of those questions—sorry, the Minister of State.

My hon. Friend will have to make do with me, but I can confirm that he has answered all his questions and has brought good news to the House. The record on jobs in Britain is very good indeed.

Why on earth should anyone in Britain believe those figures when more than 500,000 young people on slave labour schemes are not counted, more than 500,000 women are not registered and more than 100,000 ex-miners are not registered for unemployment? In pit villages in Bolsover more than 50 per cent. are unemployed and that is true of every coalfield in the country. What a pack of lies.

Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say it was "a pack of lies"?

I was using the collective noun.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an assessment of his own question. According to the internationally recognised definition by the International Labour Organisation—an organisation which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would support —Britain is leading the way in Europe with falling unemployment and in creating new employment opportunities, which I accept are required in communities that have been affected by the consequences of closures in the coal industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only does Britain have a higher proportion of people in work than any other country in Europe, but last year saw unemployment in the west midlands fall by no fewer than 73,000 people? Does my hon. Friend also agree that inward investment has protected some 76,000 jobs in the west midlands and that that inward investment would undoubtedly be jeopardised if we adopted the social chapter of which the Labour party is so fond?

My hon. Friend is right to look to the future and to emphasise the importance of new jobs which come from inward investment. He also highlights the importance of having flexibility in the labour market which enables employers to respond to the needs of the marketplace in order to create future employment. That is why the Prime Minister's opt-out from the social chapter was so important in helping to create inward investment opportunities.

Does the Minister accept that, according to his own labour force survey, another 2.2 million people are looking for work and available for work? If that information is true and he accepts it—giving a total of nearly 5 million unemployed—is that another example of, "If it's not hurting, it's not working"?

The hon. Gentleman seems to live by the code that one shoots the messenger when he brings good news, not bad news. The fact is that it is good news about employment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to claim that there are 5 million people unemployed, may we hear from the Opposition that they would accept that figure if they were in government? I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, by any accepted criteria, the ILO figures are the figures which he should look to and which are consistent with those achieved by measuring the unemployment count.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in unemployment that he described is more than paralleled in the south-west region? Will he urge his right hon. Friends to continue to resist measures of regulation, taxation burdens and political correctness which, contrary to the advice of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will damage job creation?

I agree with my hon. Friend—in fact, about 250,000 extra jobs have been created in the south-west in the past 10 years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative and the attempt to reduce the burden on businesses from red tape and regulations. It is undoubtedly true that the jobs of the future will come from small and medium-sized enterprises which must be encouraged to thrive and prosper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of senior managers were women in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

The labour force survey shows that, in the autumn of 1993, 31 per cent. of corporate managers or administrators were women. The equivalent figures for 1991 and 1992 were 29 per cent. and 31 per cent.

Has the Minister taken the time to study the report entitled "The Rising Tide" published by the Office of Science and Technology? Is she aware that one of the key recommendations of the report asks Government Departments to set a target that women will fill at least 25 per cent. of public appointments and senior manager positions by the year 2000?

Indeed, and because of the prime ministerial initiative announced in 1991 there has already been a rise from 23 per cent. to 28 per cent. of women in public appointments. Because of the initiative of Opportunity 2000, 25 per cent. of the work force are now covered by employers who are committed to those objectives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important senior manager's post that any woman can aspire to is to run her home effectively and well, particularly where children are involved, because that is of enormous benefit to the nation?

It is extremely important that we value properly those women who choose to run homes. That is why there are special exemptions for women returners in our training programmes; that is why my right hon. Friend introduced accredited prior learning and applied it also to those on career breaks; and that is why we have tried to make that choice available as widely as possible.

Does the Minister agree, however, that under the Government of whom she is a member, women are still treated as second-class workers and that only in Ireland and Luxembourg, in the European Union, are women's average earnings lower, as a proportion of men's, than in Britain?

The hon. Lady completely misunderstands the position of women in this country. Under the Government, there has been an increase in the number of women in the work force. If the hon. Lady wants European comparisons, I am delighted to give them to her. We have the second greatest proportion of women in work in the European Union. We are also the only country in which female unemployment is less than that of men. The hon. Lady should be congratulating the Government and it is the tone of her question which sorely tempts me to be less moderate than I am generally trying to be today.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if 31 per cent. of all senior managers are women, presumably the rest of them are men? In those circumstances, will she also confirm that the criteria of qualification for the job count most, rather than the attempt to get sexual equality into every aspect of our business life?

It can scarcely be doubted that, if 31 per cent. are women, the rest must be men. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I would, however, point him to the initiative, "Fair Play for Women", and to what that has already achieved in Wales and what we expect it to achieve now that we have launched it in England, in terms of making women more valued in the workplace, better qualified, better trained and giving them more opportunities generally. That has remained a consistent objective of the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the TUC to discuss matters relating to the right to belong to trade unions.

I met Mr. John Monks on 29 November last year.

Does the Minister accept that, by banning trade unions at GCHQ, the Government are denying those workers their democratic right of freedom of association? Will he try to understand that a Government who deny democratic rights to their citizens, and who arm dictators around the world who genuinely threaten this country's security, are in no position to lecture GCHQ trade unionists about disloyalty or national security?

Workers at GCHQ are able to join a staff association, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is the Conservative Government who have given everyone the right to join a trade union of their choice—something which Opposition Members have opposed.

At his meeting with Mr. John Monks, did my hon. Friend obtain an explanation as to which unions oppose a national minimum wage?

No.

Oddly enough, that was not a subject for conversation, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that there are some people in the trade union movement whose concern for jobs makes them oppose a minimum wage, unlike some Opposition Members, whose concern for dogma perhaps gives jobs second priority.

Does the Minister accept that in a decent democratic country, workers should have the right to be represented by the unions of their choice?

This is a decent democratic country. It is the Conservative Government who have given workers the right to join a trade union of their choice, and it is the Conservative Government who got rid of the wicked closed shop legislation, which prevented people from working when they did not wish to join a trade union.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effects of trade union legislation since 1979.

The legislation has transformed industrial relations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, freed from trade union shackles, British workers now produce more and compete better than many of our overseas counterparts? Is not it true that, in the 1990s, as a result of Conservative trade union legislation, many American and Japanese companies, which would not have touched us with a bargepole in the 1970s, bring to the country new investment, new factories and new jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a stark set of facts that productivity growth in the UK is higher today and was higher in the 1980s than productivity growth in Japan and that the UK strike rate is now lower than in Germany. So not only is the United Kingdom leading Europe through recovery into a sustained period of non-inflationary growth, but it is leading the way in putting harmony in place of strife and increasing the growth in productivity.

Will the Secretary of State give the House the answer which the Minister did not give to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Does he believe that, in a democratic society, an employee has the right to be represented at work by the union of his or her choice?

We have just answered the point by making it clear that we believe in a free democratic society. Employers should not be compelled to accept a negotiator who may not necessarily be the representative of the work force. It is very much up to trade unions to earn an increasing membership by appealing to their members and by selling their services to them. I take great pride in the fact that days lost through industrial action are now 20 times fewer than the average in the 1970s.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister agree to scrap the Child Support Agency in its present form and go back to the drawing board to produce a more efficient and fair method of supporting children of lone parents?

I think that children are entitled to be supported by their own parents and that taxpayers should help only to the extent that parents do not have the means to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in February we made some changes to the Child Support Agency and I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions: we shall continue to keep it under review and, if further changes are necessary, we shall make them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week's decision by the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill has caused immense dismay among my constituents in Aylesbury and among many other people in London and south-east England? Will he assure the House that the Government will look urgently at other ways in which that project might be taken forward?

I share the disappointment that the Select Committee has rejected the Crossrail Bill. We have consistently made clear our commitment to the project and I am pleased to tell the House that that commitment remains. The promoters are now urgently considering the position and we are in discussion with them on how to proceed.

When does the Prime Minister expect to publish the Department of Transport's report on the technical and legal aspects of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches, especially in view of the fact that the Government have been saying since January that that research would be published "in a few weeks' time"?

I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it. The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.

Could I urge the Prime Minister to make that very shortly indeed, as the report has been in preparation for some time and safety organisations, coach operators and the general public have been calling for a measure along those lines for a considerable time?

We are looking at a range of things. The Department of Transport has been conducting a full review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches. We also wish to take into account the circumstances of the minibus accident last Sunday and the vehicles in that respect are still being examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is right that we examine all the circumstances. As soon as we are ready, we shall bring forward our conclusions.

Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that when the Government have looked at this report they will be prepared to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency? I believe that the amendment paper contains an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) which might make possible the adoption of a decision in principle as early as tomorrow night. I repeat the offer of all-party talks which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as long ago as December, with a view to ironing out the difficulties regarding such legislation. I assure the Prime Minister that, subject to proper scrutiny, the Opposition would certainly give any legislation a speedy passage.

We wish to conclude our examination of this matter before deciding what is the right way to proceed. Increasingly a number of minibus manufacturers are fitting seat belts as a matter of course. That is a decision for them. It is also open to potential customers, when making coach or minibus bookings, to ask whether belts are fitted. I do not wish to give any indication of the outcome of the review until we have had time to study the conclusions and to reach a decision based on all the evidence that is available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while regretting the need for such a course, the House will back the decision of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to increase the number of armed response units?

There is a feeling—in the House and across the country, I suspect—that people certainly do not wish the police to be armed as a matter of course. This is a very limited measure and I believe that it is justifiable. Of course, the number of armed policemen will be very small—about 50. These officers are highly trained in the use of firearms and they will be called only to incidents where firearms might be needed.

To ask the Prime Minister what representations he had made to the Government of Pakistan to secure the release of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali from prison in Mirpur.

Although Mr. Ali is not a British citizen, our high commissioner in Islamabad has followed this matter closely on a humanitarian basis. We are concerned that Mr. Ali's case keeps being adjourned. Officials at the Foreign Office are arranging to meet his son to discuss future courses of action.

I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of Mr. Ali's wife and family, for his past efforts on this man's behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Ali has been held without proper trial for the past four years. I urge him to make further representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who will be visiting Britain and calling at the House of Commons later this week.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in the matter. So far, we have pursued it on a humanitarian basis. Given the length of time that Mr. Ali has been detained without trial, I shall consider raising his case again with the Pakistani authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Mr. Ali is not a British national we cannot assist specifically with consular advice. However, on a humanitarian basis, it is right that we should again raise with the Pakistani authorities the question of his lengthy detention without trial.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the breast cancer lobby that is taking place at the House of Commons today? Did he have time to read the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today? Will he draw its importance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?

I think my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's question. I am very pleased that the Macmillan Fund for Cancer Relief survey shows that there was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment that women had received from the national health service. That was particularly marked among those who had received treatment more recently. I understand that the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales will publish tomorrow their consultative report on the provision of cancer services. I believe that it will have far-reaching consequences for the services provided for patients with cancer.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

Is not it salutary for the international community to note that in Rwanda more people have been killed in the past six weeks—one estimate puts the figure at 500,000—than were killed in the former Yugoslavia in the whole of the past three years? Is not it vital that the United Nations, the European Community and other international agencies ensure that the time, energy and effort that they devote to the solution of crises worldwide are at least in some way proportionate to the degree of suffering on the ground?

There are many people who feel as the hon. Gentleman clearly does about the dreadful bloodshed in Rwanda. It is clearly a bitter civil war and some of the atrocities that have taken place are unforgivable by any rational judgment. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to assist where practicable. The mandate is primarily humanitarian, contributing to the security and the protection of refugees and civilians at risk. The resolution also imposes an arms embargo.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of D-day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the war widows whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice, to see whether there is some way in which he can ensure that additional recognition is given to that sacrifice this year by some form of financial payment?

I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for pensioners generally, and war widows in particular, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he has to say. My hon. Friend will agree that, over the years, we have taken great care to recognise the remarkable sacrifice made by many widows whose husbands were killed in the war and most people will consider it right of us to have done so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

If the economy is on the mend, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, instead of increasing VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in April, will he consider getting rid of it altogether?

I do not think that many people doubt that the economy is on the mend. All the indicators show that that is certainly the case. Not every single indicator in the months ahead may be as good as we would wish, but the overall trend is undoubted. One of the reasons why the economy is moving ahead is that we have taken the tax measures necessary to improve our public finances.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects for economic growth and inflation in the United Kingdom.

The prospects for the economy are extremely good—[Interruption.]—and not only that, this year the United Kingdom is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy for the second year running. Underlying inflation is under control, at its lowest for 25 years and well within its target range. I shall spare Opposition Members all the rest that it says here.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the hardest lessons we have to relearn as a country is that British manufacturing industry can prosper only if it is competitive? Against that background, will he join me in welcoming yesterday's news that factory gate inflation is at a low level not seen in Britain for a generation?

My hon. Friend is quite right about competitiveness. The more competitive we are, the more we will sell and the more jobs we will be able to create in this country. The figures on factory gate prices are extremely good—better than we have seen for many years. One of the reasons why we are competitive and will remain so is that we have no intention of saddling our companies with the social on-costs that so many in Europe have now undertaken and which so many in the House would be prepared to undertake.

Will the Prime Minister contrast the sweeping victories of many Labour groups in the local elections recently—

Order. I am listening carefully because the hon. Gentleman's question has to be tied to the question on the Order Paper on prospects for economic growth and inflation.

Indeed, Madam Speaker. Will the Prime Minister compare that record with the awful record of the Black Country development corporation on economic development in the black country? In the light of that comparison, would he care to give back to Labour authorities the money taken from them for that economic development?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Black Country development corporation. It is clear that right across the black country and the country as a whole the prospects for manufacturing industry and other industries are rapidly improving. That is self-evident in the growth seen in the past 12 months, the growth that we are seeing now and the growth that we can safely anticipate in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that sharpening the skills of our schoolchildren will improve the competitive edge of the economy in the future? Does he welcome the recently announced statistics showing that more of our schoolchildren are staying on at school than ever before?

I do welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that the number of people who are unemployed is falling and has been consistently for 15 months. Some years ago, about one in eight of young people went on to further education; that figure is now one in three. Some 70 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are now in full-time education. I am sure that that trend is right and I thoroughly welcome it.