To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of a national minimum wage on the employment prospects of unemployed people in other EU countries. [31781]

Reports by the OECD, the IMF and the European Commission confirm that a statutory minimum wage destroys jobs and job prospects, particularly for young people. That is most clearly demonstrated in France, where youth unemployment is twice the United Kingdom rate, and in Spain, where it is three times as high.

It is welcome that my hon. Friend should spell out so unambiguously the potential consequences to this country of any imposition of a statutory minimum wage. In that regard, would it be only a self-imposed imposition, because neither European Union employment law, nor even the social chapter of the notorious Maastricht treaty itself, could impose such a requirement on this country?

My hon. Friend is right. A minimum wage will be imposed in this country only if it is imposed by the Labour party if it gets into government. Its policy on the minimum wage is doubly dishonest. First, it pretends to the less well-off that there is some easy, cost-free method of raising their pay. Secondly, the Opposition will not indicate the level at which it will be set until after the election. They are giving the less well-off a menu without prices in the hope that they will not discover the true cost for their jobs until it is too late.

How can the Minister justify to the House the fact that more than 1 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour? How can he justify the fact that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for low pay to the extent of £2.4 billion? Is not the real reason why the Tories are against a national minimum wage that they are in favour of low pay? Is it not a disgrace that they have abolished the Department of Employment and that employment issues, such as unemployment and low pay, are to be consigned to the basement of the Department of Trade and Industry?

The hon. Lady is wrong. The pay of the least well-off has increased substantially. The pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings—[Interruption.]If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) will contain herself and listen, she might learn something. According to the labour force survey, which the Labour party says that it supports, the pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 since 1979—faster than prices. Under the last Labour Government, the pay of the same person would have fallen. Until Opposition Members can tell the country at what level they would set the minimum wage, their policy will have no credibility and will be nothing but a dishonest and cruel deceit on the less well-off.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet representatives of East Anglian training and enterprise councils to discuss training schemes for the long-term unemployed. [31782]

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I enjoy regular contact with the TEC movement in East Anglia.

Will the Minister find time today to pay tribute to the excellent work that the Norfolk and Waveney TEC has been doing for the long-term unemployed? Is it not worth reflecting on the fact that the TECs have been resisted at every turn and undermined by the Opposition, in spite of the excellent work that they have been doing? Does he also agree that, for the long-term unemployed, it is important to ensure plenty of business start-ups? What is he doing to help that?

I am happy to extend my good wishes to Norfolk and Waveney TEC, which has done a good job. Last year, when we published the TEC league tables, there was a substantial improvement in its performance, and I look forward to a continuing improvement next month, when we publish the tables for the past year. My hon. Friend is right to point out the problems of people wanting to start work and to become self-employed. That is why we have amended the rules of the training for work scheme to enable people, through training for work, to receive all the necessary advice, counselling, help and financial support, while they develop their business plans, so that any TEC is able to provide considerable support to such people.

Will the Minister confirm the success—I believe that it is right to call it that—of workstart pilot projects, especially in East Anglia, and will he confirm that he is planning to create another 5,000 places at a cost of £7.5 million? How can he reconcile that rather minimal investment with the forecast that there will still be over 1 million long-term unemployed by the year 2000, and the fact that unemployment is costing the country £20 billion a year? Does he think that some of the cuts in training expenditure should be transferred to workstart projects, which will improve training and the chances for the long-term unemployed of getting back into work in worthwhile jobs?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There will be 5,000 places in workstart schemes this year, which is a considerable increase on last year. He is not right to talk about substantial cuts in the training budget. The fact is that TEC budgets this year are almost identical to what they were last year. Yes, training for work has had a reduction; but there has been a substantial increase in other budgets so that the total has hardly changed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on inactivity rates. [31784]

The United Kingdom has a lower inactivity rate than any other major European Union country.

Is the Minister aware that, over recent years, the number of people who are economically inactive and therefore displaced from the labour market has risen to over 7.8 million? Does that figure not give the lie to ministerial claims of success in tackling unemployment and creating jobs? More significantly, is it not symptomatic of a Government approach that is summed up by the decision to abolish the Department of Employment at the very time when there are more, not fewer, people struggling to find work?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understands what the economic activity and inactivity rates include. He suggests that those who are in the category of looking for work are somehow inactive; they are not. The unemployed are classified as economically active; the inactive figures to which he refers include, for example, the massive increase in the number of young people staying on at school. There has been an increase in the staying-on rate from 48 to 73 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is very good news for those young people's future career prospects, because they will have greater career opportunities and greater earning capacity. That is why the rate of inactivity has not gone down as much as the hon. Gentleman might wish.

Does my hon. Friend agree, when we are talking about inactivity, that those in employment who fail to turn up for work for no good reason should be docked that day's pay, and that that should include Welsh Opposition Members who failed to turn up for Welsh questions?

It is entirely up to employers to make their own rules regarding deductions from wages for non-attendance. So far as the House is concerned, that is down to you, Madam Speaker.

I am afraid that the Minister is far too complacent. He seems to be unaware that one in four men of working age is without a job and that large numbers of those people are discouraged older workers. That is a result of one of the few successful Government policies: the encouragement of low-paid work. Virtually all the new jobs in the past 10 years have been low-paid, and have been overwhelmingly taken up by women living with an earning partner.

Rarely has the House been exposed to such a nonsensical diatribe. The hon. Lady's facts are diametrically opposed to the truth. The simple fact is that in this country, as in every other country apart from Japan, there has been a small reduction in male activity rates, but it is not correct to align that fact with a change in the employment pattern over the past 10 or 20 years.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a substantial rise in economic inactivity over the past 20 years—I believe from 2 to 13 per cent.—among men? Has he noted the especially high incidence of economic inactivity—dropping out of the labour market—among men over the age of 55? Now that the Department of Employment has been merged with the Department for Education, will my hon. Friend give new thought to how we can help to make such involuntary early retirement a dignified condition, and how we can support people who have this experience in developing a satisfying new phase of life?

It is not Government policy to encourage people to become economically inactive. We want everyone who wants a job to have the opportunity to find one, but the only way in which we can create jobs is by having a dynamic economy with low inflation, low interest rates and a competitive currency, which are precisely the criteria that we have. That is why we have a sustained rate of growth in our economy, one that is better than those of virtually all of our competitors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of European works councils. [31785]

It is too early to assess works councils and other arrangements being established in response to the European directive.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not know whether he represents the Department just abolished but a range of Front-Bench jobs have been created—perhaps those holding those jobs could form a works council to negotiate with their new boss. Now that Britain's main companies are forming a European works council at the rate of almost one a week and in defiance of the Government's opt-out from the social charter, will the Minister join me in welcoming that trend and urge all the other multinationals in Britain to form European works councils as soon as possible?

I am from the DTI and proud of it. May I correct a misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring? The Government are not against the creation of works councils and voluntary arrangements, but we are against compulsory bureaucratic legislation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while there is a range of different ways in which employers may choose to organise their bargaining rights with their employees, what is completely wrong and anathema to Conservatives is the idea that bureaucrats in Brussels should lay down in detail what sort of relationship employers and employees should have with each other? Is that not one of the reasons why the Japanese and Americans seeking to invest money in Europe have chosen to invest pre-eminently in this country? Is it not a fact that we have attracted almost half the total inward investment in the European Union precisely because investors do not want to be dictated to about how to organise their working arrangements?

My hon. Friend introduces the real world into this question—the real world of jobs, growth and development. It might be useful to remind the House that unemployment stands at almost 18.5 million in the European Union, whereas the figure is down to 8.3 per cent. in the United Kingdom, which is much lower than the European average, and still dropping. Some of our competitors in the European Union, such as France, have an unemployment rate of 12.4 per cent. That is the real world: creating jobs—jobs for British people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new proposals she has for those who have been permanently employed who have recently become unemployed. [31787]

We shall continue to follow policies that have reduced unemployment by more than 660,000 since recovery began and enabled nearly 300,000 new jobs to be created in the past year.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion to new duties, which is richly deserved, since, on a memorable occasion, she drew the Prime Minister's attention to Rentokil, a company that he has used effectively to get rid of the entire Department of Employment. The employees and Ministers of that Department have alternative employment prospects, but, sadly, many people who lose their jobs in mid-life have no such alternative and their working life ends at 50. When a similar event happens to many Conservative Members, and they then go on the jobseeker's trail, will the hon. Lady tell me what answer she will give to the question on the jobseeker's agreement "What is the minimum wage you would be prepared to work for"? I am sure that she will give the same answer that she expects of all other people.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome, and might I add how pleased I am to see him in the Chamber today—he has decided not to work part-time after all. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point behind the merger of the Departments for Education and of Employment. That merger sends the clearest possible signal that education and training are at the top of the Government's agenda to improve the country's competitiveness. The merger will also offer a real focus to active labour market policies and build on the achievements of recent years in reducing unemployment.

May I also take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on getting to the Front Bench and say how nice it is to see someone with such a lovely blond hairstyle, which is so appropriate? There is hope for us all yet.

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome for my appearance at the Dispatch Box, and I agree with him absolutely. The prospects for the unemployed in the United Kingdom continue to improve and new vacancies continue to be notified to jobcentres—more than 200,000 a month. It is our policies which are helping to put people back to work.

Will the Minister give us some information on when we will next be allowed to ask questions about the unemployment rate, since this is the last Employment Question Time that we shall be allowed to have? Will she confirm when it was decided to abolish the Department of Employment? What is the expected rate of redundancy among civil servants at that former Department?

The hon. Lady is quite ungenerous in her remarks about the merger of the two Departments. In fact, I was reading just earlier this morning that that merger has been welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the National Union of Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—just to name a few. The hon. Lady should re-examine what we doing in those two Departments and generously welcome the Government's brave policy, which will improve education and training right across the board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were in full-time work at (a) 1 July 1993 and (b) 1 July 1995. [31788]

Over the quarters ending August 1993 and February 1995, there were 19 million and 19.2 million people in full-time employment in Great Britain.

Will the Secretary of State please spell out the implications for those in employment of the introduction of the social chapter, the minimum wage, and the loss of inward investment that would result from the policies of the Labour party and the parliamentary part-timers, the Liberal Democrats?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his lovely blond hairstyle. As he well knows, the social chapter would roll back successes made in the United Kingdom in the past decade in modernising our industrial relations and removing the regulation that deters employers from taking on extra people. In the past decade, we have also provided extra help for unemployed people to find work.

Is it not true that nearly 600,000 women in part-time jobs had to stay there because they could not obtain full-time jobs, and that 2.5 million part-timers earn less than the national insurance threshold, thus excluding them from statutory sick pay, maternity pay and a retirement pension? How does the Minister believe those people will live when they get sick and when they get old?

It is true that the growth of employment in the early stages of recovery was concentrated among part-timers, but the hon. Lady should also know that full-time employment has now increased at a faster rate than part-time employment, and that only 14 per cent. of people who worked part time this winter did so because they could not find a full-time job. The imposition of a national minimum wage is the wrong way to tackle low pay and unemployment, and women would suffer the worst as a result.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people employed in manufacturing increased by 15,000 in the quarter to March, and that that was the third quarter running? Will she also confirm that many of those jobs are in the east midlands, and most of them are full-time jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Government's general approach to the labour market—a sound macro-economic policy, open trade and flexible labour markets—has helped the recovery and the creation of jobs, which he so rightly welcomes, in the east midlands as elsewhere in the country.

Bearing in mind that, when the Secretary of State was Employment Secretary, she brought in the legislation that abolished the wages councils, thereby taking away low pay protection from 2.5 million workers, will she confirm to the House the figures that are in the latest labour force survey, which show that, in spite of the fact that pay for those in the bottom of those wages council sectors has fallen, and therefore they have suffered from the loss of that low pay protection, there has been no increase in jobs in those sectors and therefore we have the worst of all worlds—losing low pay protection and no extra jobs?

The hon. Lady has misread the labour force survey. She should know from that that the wages of those who were previously covered by wages councils have increased faster than other wages. I repeat that pay must be a matter for determination between employers and employees. The hon. Lady needs to understand that a national minimum wage would have precisely the effect that she would so much deprecate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effects of labour market regulation on levels of youth unemployment. [31789]

The Government believe that labour market regulation damages the level of employment, particularly for young people. Youth unemployment is higher in France and Spain, both of which have a statutory minimum wage.

The House will welcome the growing number of teenagers who stay on in education and training. Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to ascertain what rates of pay are agreed for people aged 17 and 16 in the Trades Union Congress, in the CBI, in his own Department and in the House of Commons Commission? I believe that he will discover that regulation is not only what is imposed by Government, but that it can be agreements between managers and unions that exclude young people from obtaining the experience on the basis of which they will be hired and taken on.

My hon. Friend will understand if I do not answer every aspect of his question. I shall certainly look into the point that he raises. It will assist the House as well as my hon. Friend if I say that, in September 1994, there were 2,313 16 to 21-year-olds employed in the former Department of Employment—56 per cent. of them were paid more than £8,000 a year. I shall come back to my hon. Friend, not only on the equivalent figures with regard to education in the combined Department, but on the other aspects that he mentioned.

Why should young unemployed people have confidence that the Government have any concern for their welfare or the welfare of anyone in work when Ministers have admitted that, on no fewer than 16,000 occasions in the past five years—there are records to show this—employers have broken the law in relation to notification of redundancies to the Department? On not one occasion have Ministers prosecuted an employer for breaking those laws. How will the abolition of the Department of Employment help to resolve that problem? Will the Government now start insisting that employers have to abide by the laws of this land?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question on the consequences of the abolition of the Department is that there will be no change in terms of the state of the law, which will continue to be implemented as it has in the past. The hon. Gentleman asked his question against a background of a significant improvement in the prospects of young people gaining employment over the past two years. Claimant unemployment for under-25s has fallen by 200,000 over the past two years—a faster rate of decline than for the population in general. As the House knows, but the Labour party tends to ignore, the rates for youth unemployment in this country remain among the best in Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received concerning agism in employment vacancies. [31790]

I have not yet received any representations myself but, like my predecessor, I am committed to the campaign for older workers. I commend to the House the excellent publication, "Too old … who says?", which provides advice and guidance to those seeking work. Agism makes no economic sense for individual employers or for the nation.

May I add my congratulations to the many other congratulations that my hon. Friend has received on her well-deserved and popular promotion to the Front Bench? My hon. Friend will know that I am extremely concerned about that group of the work force in their 40s and 50s who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs during the recession and are unable to find work. What incentives and guidelines are the Government giving to employers to ensure that they do not turn their backs on that valuable resource?

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks.

In congratulating—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is in good spirits today.

In congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion, may I bring to her attention the fact that many older workers are among the long-term unemployed? Will she explain to us in her first outing today why there are now three times as many long-term unemployed as there were when the Tory Government took over in 1979—and do so without assistance from her pal at the side?

I do not intend, even on my first outing, to take lectures on unemployment from the Labour party, particularly as the levels of unemployment rose quite unacceptably under the last Labour Government—if, indeed, there is anyone in the House who can remember that Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what comparison she has made between the strike record in the United Kingdom and Germany currently and between the United Kingdom and West Germany in 1979. [31791]

In 1979, the United Kingdom lost 29.5 million days through strikes—more than 50 times West Germany's total of 0.5 million. In 1993, by contrast, the United Kingdom and the unified Germany each lost 0.6 million days to labour disputes.

I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting and encouraging figures. Does he agree that Britain's improved industrial relations record in the 1980s produced a very good case for abolishing the Department of Employment some years ago?

That is an interesting perspective. Many extremely good civil servants worked in the Department of Employment, which was a very good Department. I think that they will go to other Departments and spread around their good work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how TEC licensing will improve standards of training; and what assessment she has made of the proportion of TECs currently achieving good standards. [31792]

Three-year licences are awarded to training and enterprise councils that meet rigorous standards for performance and capability. All TECs are required to achieve a licence by 1997.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that training and retraining are vital in today's society and that they must be worth while, of a high calibre and must help the participants? Is he aware that, although some TECs have failed in some areas, the majority have done a very good job? SOLOTEC in my borough of Bexley has done an excellent job in the past few years.

My hon. Friend is correct: training on its own is inadequate unless it is of a high calibre. That is why we have concentrated on a range of measures to drive up the performance of our training courses through TECs and it is why we publish performance league tables for all TECs every August. That demonstrates the rate of improvement in many TECs, including SOLOTEC, which I am pleased to congratulate on its success. There is a further range of measures, including funding according to performance, designed to improve the output of TECs.

The Minister talks about improving standards of training. Did not Coopers and Lybrand's study into the output-related funding of training conclude that the Government have virtually destroyed training provision in this country? Why were the implications of output-related funding not evaluated properly before the scheme went national this financial year?

My right hon. Friend will address the TEC national conference on Thursday. She will reassure it of our total support for the role that TECs play and will continue to play in the provision of training. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening earlier when I said that training budgets overall have not changed from last year. He identified one specific sector of the training budget—training for work—but overall it has not changed. The evidence is entirely clear on output-related funding. TECs running output-related pilots improved their training output dramatically, and it was entirely logical that they were the way forward for the whole country.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the pick-up in the house building programme recently? Does he share my concern about the lack of basic skills within that industry? What steps can be taken throughout the construction industry, perhaps to reintroduce the traditional apprenticeships of old?

I have good news for my hon. Friend. First, the Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for training in that industry. Secondly, it has embarked on the provision of modern apprenticeships, along with many other organisations and employers who this year will make available nearly 50 different vocational modern apprentice-ships to enable a vast range of people to obtain recognised qualifications based on competence testing. That is the way forward to meet the skills needs of the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to tackle the problem of low pay. [31793]

Since 1979, the real take-home pay of a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has risen by £27 a week and that of a single woman in the bottom 10 per cent. has risen by £29 a week. We all want pay levels for the less well-off to rise even further but it has to be sustainable, based on improving productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. To suggest that pay can rise just by political diktat without improved productivity is dishonest and deceitful and would undoubtedly cost many people's jobs.

I am glad that the Minister has the same fervour and commitment to his policies as the former Secretary of State for Employment, but in the deregulated wage market of the global economy, what determines the base rate without a minimum wage? Malthus would have said that it was the level at which workers can just survive and do no more than perpetuate their own numbers. What would the Minister say the base rate should be? Is it 50p an hour? How low will the Minister go?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's base rate should be, but I am glad that he has bothered to turn up for questions today. The only sustainable way to improve people's earning power is to improve their education and training so that they are more productive and can earn more on a sustainable basis. The Labour party's policies are misguided. Even Sir Gordon Borrie, chairman of Labour's Social Justice Commission, wrote in The Guardian recently—[Interruption.]

Order. I insist that the hon. Gentleman stops barracking from a sedentary position. Mindless barracking gets the House nowhere. It does not advance the quality of our debate one bit.

Sir Gordon Borrie wrote in The Guardian:

"The interesting question is at what level a minimum wage should be set. Too high a figure will cost jobs; too low a figure will not be worth having."

In the interests of maintaining Britain's global competitiveness—a very important national interest—does my hon. Friend agree that, in so far as it is necessary to use social transfers to support those on low pay, family credit and similar forms of benefit support are much better than the minimum wage, which could distort and prejudice our competitive position?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to improve living standards for everyone, particularly the less well-off, is to improve the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of the British economy. It is because we are now so much more efficient and productive than we were in 1979 that pay at all levels has risen substantially, not least for the less well-off.

Does the Minister agree that it is waffle and double-talk to oppose a minimum wage while the Government spend £2.4 billion subsidising sweatshop pay through the benefits system? Does the Minister further agree that it is an insult to the people of Dunfermline and west Fife and of many other communities that the Government's only reward, when there is a desperate need for decently paid jobs, is to spend another £75 million on an additional top-up earnings benefit, rather than provide productive work?

One of the biggest myths in the Opposition's campaign for a minimum wage is that it would get rid of all in-work benefits, yet the Opposition spokesman was told recently by Andrew Dilnott, head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that even a minimum wage of £8 per hour would leave many people claiming income support. If it is now Opposition policy to get rid of all in-work benefits, they should say so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31811]

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.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study yesterday's debate in Hansard—and not just my speech? Is he aware that, on the very day when the Leader of the Opposition was refusing to put a figure on a national minimum wage, his Social Security spokesman was assuming a rate of about £3 or £3.50 in the House?

I have not yet read Hansard, but clearly I had better look at it very carefully, and I will. I did not know that which my hon. Friend stated, but if it is the case, I strongly suspect that the Leader of the Opposition knows that a minimum wage is economic nonsense but that he regards it as politically expedient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear one day precisely the figure that he has in mind; he certainly owes it to the public to do so. Perhaps he will soon tell us.

Does the Prime Minister agree in principle that Members of Parliament should disclose their earnings from outside consultancies?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that a Select Committee is examining that matter. The Committee has reported, and I will do it the courtesy of awaiting its report.

That was the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee. Does he accept the principle or not: yes or no?

I told the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a Select Committee to examine the issue. When it has done so, I will deal with the matter.

Is the Prime Minister really saying that the Committee cannot come up with an answer in eight weeks, or is it just a coincidence that the main recommendation on which it cannot agree a definition happens to be the main recommendation to which Conservative Members object? Is it not time that the Prime Minister asserted his authority? The Nolan report is the right hon. Gentleman's report. He commissioned it and said that he accepted it, and he should ensure that the Government implement it in full without further delay.

The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to use this report as a political football is pretty transparent and pretty shabby. He knows that the Select Committee has made excellent progress. It has met 14 times in 14 days—more intensively than any Select Committee has met before. It is still considering these matters. It will report and then the House will make its decision, as I have said from the outset, on matters relating to Back Benchers.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31812]

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that some 10 years ago the newspapers were obsessed with the money supply, trade figures and days lost through strikes? Is it not a tribute to this Government that the number of days lost through strikes last year was only 1 per cent. of the number lost in 1979? Is not the Leader of the Opposition somewhat naive to claim that the unions no longer have an armlock over his party, when old Labour is still waiting in the wings to support strikes and organise "boyocotts"?

As a wise old policeman once said, there is no need for an armlock when the suspect comes along quietly. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already offered the unions most of what they want—the social chapter, a minimum wage, new trade union rights—while his Front-Bench team enjoys the sponsorship of all trade unions. I think that, almost without exception, his Front-Bench team is sponsored in one form or another.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, at this precise moment, the United Nations' ultimate will is being tested by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica and that, on this occasion, if that will fails the United Nations' mission in the front-line areas of Bosnia is likely to fail with it?

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the situation in Srebrenica. I can certainly confirm to him and the House that the situation is very serious. UN commanders on the ground have asked the Bosnian Serbs to release the UN protection force's troops whom they have been holding and to halt their offensive.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the widespread dismay among scientists and in universities at the transfer of the research councils to the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he confirm that his Government will continue to value fundamental research? Will he confirm that the research councils will continue to sustain the dual support system of university funding? Will he undertake to reconsider this decision, which abruptly overturns a policy developed after widespread consultation and announced in a White Paper only two years ago?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the role of the Office of Science and Technology is unchanged and that it will continue with the role that it has had over recent years. The transfer implies no reduction in our commitment to fundamental research or to the dual support system, and our policies remain as set out in the White Paper two years or so ago. That will continue, as will the technology foresight process.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31813]

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

Following the sorry spectacle of the Tory leadership election and the worn-out ritual of the reshuffle, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on retaining his post in the Government now run by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? When are we to be told what the First Secretary of State's responsibilities are? When are we to have an opportunity to ask the First Secretary of State oral questions? Why after five years has the Prime Minister decided that he needs a deputy? If he does need such an insurance policy, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill?

My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will support me across the full range of Government policies. He will have direct control over Government policy on competitiveness and deregulation, and he will answer questions in the House. He has a reputation for straight talking, as has the deputy leader of the Labour party. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have a reputation for robustly attacking the Labour leader, and I expect that to continue.

May I return to the crucial subject of the minimum wage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who support it must be so desperate to suck up to their trade union paymasters that they do not care how many British jobs they destroy in the process? Does he also agree that any political party that advocates a minimum wage but cannot agree on what it should be is utterly unfit and unready for government?

There seems to be some uncertainty and dithering about the minimum wage on the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour leader smiles; he may well smile, but I should rather hear an answer to the question "What will the minimum wage be?" than see him smile.

"Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."

"shake-out … any silly fool knew that."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31814]

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

Will the Prime Minister join our Commonwealth partners, Australia and New Zealand, in their opposition to the nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific?

No, I will not.

If my right hon. Friend has time in the course of his busy day, will he send warm congratulations to the RUC in Northern Ireland on the sturdy way in which it has stood up to the wilder elements among the Orangemen? Is it not about time that these provocative and silly historical marches were banned?

I congratulate the RUC on its restraint and professionalism in dealing with those incidents—and, indeed, with other recent incidents. I believe that it deserves the whole-hearted support of all hon. Members and all responsible leaders in Northern Ireland.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31815]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall making a solemn promise in March 1993 to take action in regard to spiralling water charges in the south-west, where prices have doubled in the past two years? After two years of pondering the problem, will he tell the House how he will help consumers in the south-west—or is that another matter that he has referred to the Deputy Prime Minister?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will cease pressing the Government to maintain the high standards of cleanliness and improvement in those waters that is giving rise to the charges. Perhaps the support given by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for European directives will indicate that he does not wish us to disobey the directives with which we are dealing. We have sought to cut charges by rearranging the speed of the capital expenditure that is taking place to assist people in the west country; that is the only way in which it is practicable to help.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July. [31816]

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

Will my right hon. Friend contrast his policy of improving services on the Northern line through increased investment with that of Jimmy Knapp of disrupting those services?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is a wider point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke up for water consumers. Why do he and his colleagues not speak up for rail passengers? Why are Opposition Members happy to support strikes on British Rail while they parade around claiming to be in favour of the consumer? The reality is that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' call for a strike on the underground—[Interruption.] I do not know which Opposition Front-Bench Member shouted then, but perhaps he or she is sponsored by the RMT. The RMT's call for a strike on the underground will damage the progress that has been made by London Underground and will cause unnecessary misery and disruption to passengers. I return to the central point. How can the Opposition claim to speak for consumers while they ignore rail passengers and leave them to face the strikes without a single word of condemnation from their Front Benchers?

To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Ayrshire. [31817]

I have no current plans to do so.

I am sure that the people of Ayrshire will be glad of that. May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the national health service and, in particular, to Ayrshire and Arran health board's idea of taking all its services into the private sector and allowing companies from the United States to come in purely on the basis of profit? What has the Prime Minister got to say about that? How can he possibly say that the health service is safe in his hands?

The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, of the increased resources for the health service, the 1 million-plus extra patients treated by the health service and the better services being provided by the health service. He seeks yet again to trade politically on a health service that he knows is improving and is providing a better service than at any stage in the past—and a better service than any Labour Government could provide for the people of this country.