What measures she is taking to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the civil service. [120432]

The Government have a strong commitment to equal opportunities. It is our determination that the public sector is fully representative of the community of the whole of the United Kingdom. To that end, we have set targets at all levels of the civil service and in all Departments. Recently, Mr. Museji Ahmed Takolia has been taken on as a senior adviser on equal opportunities and particularly on the recruitment of people from ethnic minority communities.

I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's reply and especially the appointment of a senior adviser to oversee these matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an important role in going to schools throughout the country to try to recruit youngsters from ethnic minorities into the civil service? Does he also agree that we should target recruitment in certain regions of the United Kingdom? In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, it was pointed out that, in south Wales, which has one of the oldest black communities in the UK, integration in public service and the civil service is not satisfactory. It would be helpful if we targeted resources accordingly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I agree completely that there is a responsibility on all Ministers, Members of Parliament and people in official positions to explain how young people from schools and universities can gain access to the civil service. There is also a responsibility to ensure that, when people from ethnic minorities gain access to jobs in the civil service, it is seen as a fair and just place for those people to work. Last year, a careers fair was organised entirely for the purpose of attracting ethnic minorities into the civil service. It was extremely well attended—by 1,500 people in all. That fair will be repeated this year.

Will the Minister guarantee that only those with the appropriate skills and qualifications will be recruited to and promoted in the civil service?

It is clearly this Government's policy that people who are appointed will be the best for the job. The same will apply to promotion. Statistics, particularly in respect of the top of the civil service, show a certain amount of unfairness. People from different communities in this country are not being attracted into those jobs. We must proactively do something about that without discriminating in the other direction.

What recent discussions she has had with the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator on measures to tackle drug abuse. [120433]

I hold regular meetings with the anti-drugs co-ordinator to discuss all aspects of Government policy.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that too many young people use and experiment with drugs. Is she aware of the recent editorial in The Daily Telegraph, which stated that the Government should

experiment with legislation to legalise cannabis?

The Government have made their position clear on cannabis and ecstasy in response to the recommendations of the recent Police Foundation report: no change. However, I always believe that there is room for discussion and debate on such issues; that is part of a good, open, democratic society. We shall, of course, consider—as we are now—many of the recommendations of the Police Foundation, and we hope to make many of them active policy very soon. We have a 10-year strategy that has four parts: treatment, stopping availability of drugs, prevention and working particularly with young people. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that.

When will the Government stop making criminals of people with long-term neurological disease and painful terminal illnesses, and allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes?

We are examining that. We have scientific research that is close to completion, and research is also being done on synthesising particular constituents of the cannabis plant to make substances available that are not cannabis. I cannot give the hon. Lady a direct answer on when, but like her, I hope that it will be soon.

Does the Minister agree that one way that we can get the message across is by getting to young people at a very early stage, as Life Education does in Lancashire, where it has three Rotary-sponsored vehicles—and is about to get a fourth—that go around primary schools? Will the Minister send congratulations on those efforts?

I believe that education is an essential part of prevention in relation to drugs. We are working hard with education authorities and schools. Well over 60 per cent. of primary schools and well over 90 per cent. of secondary schools provide some education about drugs, and progress is being made.

Is the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator working closely with the rough sleepers initiative to encourage drug misusers to come off our streets, hopefully into treatment programmes? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Winter Comfort case in Cambridge is causing great concern among those working with rough sleepers? Will the Government please give guidance to field workers?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the drug unit and the social exclusion unit rough sleepers initiative work closely together, because many rough sleepers are exposed to drugs and some become addicts. To realise the extent of the problem, one has only to walk home from this place late at night and see the homeless being propositioned by drug pushers.

What is her policy on the use of the media in the delivery of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [120435]

The Government's anti-drugs communications strategy is co-ordinated by Keith Hellawell and his team. Resources for communications form part of the funding for the drug prevention action service and local drug action teams so that they can tailor publicity to local needs. Work is also being done nationally through the Health Education Authority. We welcome the work of the Metropolitan police through their "Rat on a Rat" campaign, which is yielding results in London.

Since the publication of the Broadcasting Standards Commission report, "Knowing the Score", which was published with the British Board of Film Classification, has the right hon. Lady met representatives of the BBC and the Independent Television Commission to discuss the glamorising of drug use in fictional and factual programming, and the gratuitous coverage of drug use on the news? The latter causes particular anxiety.

I have not met representatives of the BBC or the ITC, but we have examined high-profile campaigning and the use of images of drug takers in the media. Our results show that while such high-profile coverage does not help, it does not hinder as much as many people believe.

Should we not congratulate Fulcrum television, which set up a commission on drugs and, like the Police Foundation, visited many parts of the world, and reached precisely the same conclusion? It was "impressed" that, after 20 years of decriminalisation in Holland, less cannabis is used, and in safer forms, by all generations in the Netherlands than in Britain. We should start telling the truth about the success of decriminalisation in the Netherlands and stop misrepresenting it.

As I said earlier, we made the Government's position clear in our response to the Police Foundation; I leave it to my hon. Friend to respond to Fulcrum.

I understand the points that the right hon. Lady has been making. However, I was struck recently by a comment that George Best made in a film about him. He said that drugs were a no-no, after acknowledging his mistakes about other matters. It is important to encourage the media to set more positive examples of life style. It is not enough to claim that they represent reality. As an old friend of mine used to say, rats are a reality, but we do not allow them in the kitchen.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything we can in schools and throughout society to try to get our message on prevention across. Our research shows that the best way to reach young people is not by dictating to them, but by getting someone—for example, a footballer or a Member of Parliament—to go to schools and youth clubs to talk to them about the problem. That makes a difference, because young people can ask questions and interact with the visitor. However, I do not deny the hon. Gentleman's basic statement. We all agree that just saying no is crucial.

Up to now, I have opposed any change in policy, for the reasons that Members of all parties have given. Nevertheless, I have now reached a different conclusion. There should be a wide-ranging debate because the current policy, certainly on cannabis, does not work. It makes criminals or semi-criminals of otherwise law-abiding people. The Police Foundation report will be the subject of a hearing by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the near future. I hope that my right hon. Friend and members of both Front-Bench teams will listen carefully to the evidence of the chairperson of the Police Foundation on the reasons for its conclusions.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I look forward to the Select Committee report and I welcome debate on the issue.

When the final "Listening to Older People" event will take place; and if she will make a statement. [120436]

The Government take listening and responding to older people very seriously. That is why we launched last May our "Listening to Older People" programme. Eleven "Listening to Older People" events took place throughout the country last year. This stage of the programme culminates in a national listening event in London on 17 May, where we will launch a programme of action to respond to the issues raised during the listening programme.

Can the Minister tell the House whether at any of the "Listening to Older People" meetings the question of the wide variation in home-care charges was raised with Ministers? Today, the Audit Commission has revealed the stark reality of exceedingly wide variations of charges throughout the country. It has exposed the fact also that one in three councils are driving pensioners into poverty by their charging policies. What will the Government do about this? Will they announce concrete action at the final conference on 17 May?

Yes, care charges were discussed at the events that took place. The Government will respond later this year to the Audit Commission's report, which was published today, as we will respond to the royal commission report on care later this year.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that this series of events proves that we are widening the debate beyond pensions issues for older people and engaging with ordinary individuals? We have already introduced a wide range of measures for older people. Will my hon. Friend comment on the progress of the better government for older people programme?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right. The 28 pilot projects that arose from the better government for older people programme covered a range of areas of concern for elderly people, from action against crime to better responsiveness by the health service, better transport and precise care for Asian elders in Bolton. The projects are at the end of their natural life, but I suspect that the local authorities that sponsored them will continue with much of the work that was undertaken while the Government assess and evaluate the projects.

Does the Minister realise that pensioners do not believe that the Government are listening to them? In the document that launched his programme, the Prime Minister said:

financial security is crucial for older people.

From my experience of listening to elderly people, they know exactly what the Conservative party did during its time in office. They remember that the Conservative Government removed the link between earnings and pensions and thereby created the greatest diversity of income among pensioners in western Europe. They know also—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge and confirm this—that the Conservatives propose to abolish the minimum income guarantee, which has benefited more than 1 million pensioners, and also oppose the winter fuel payment. They certainly would not have brought those benefits to pensioners had they been in power.

Pensioners will not be diverted by the Minister from their experience of what has happened under the Government. When it comes to experience, will the Minister confirm that one of his 28 pilot projects is in Hartlepool? Will he explain why it makes any sense to have a pilot project of listening to older people in Hartlepool while the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is attending Labour party meetings and saying that there is no mileage for the Labour party in pensioners? The consequence of that was a one-third reduction in the Labour vote in Hartlepool last Thursday. That will continue while the Labour party fails to deliver to pensioners.

The pensioners to whom I listened are aware of the damage that the Conservative party has done to pensioners and the damage that it would do if it were ever to return to power. They recognise also that the £6.5 billion that the Government have put into pensioners' pockets would not have reached them had the Conservatives been in power. None of those initiatives would have been taken by the hon. Gentleman's party. When the Conservative Government were in power, he was more interested in raising charges on eye tests than in making access to the health service free for those tests.

What plans she has to ensure that initiatives to tackle social exclusion work together to integrate their activity with mainstream programmes. [120438]

The targets contained in the social exclusion unit's reports on rough sleeping, school exclusion and truancy and teenage pregnancy are included in the relevant Departments' public service agreements. That means that the targets will form an integral part of the mainstream business of each Department. The framework consultation document on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal proposes that core public services, such as schools, police and health services, should be the Government's main weapon against deprivation.

I am grateful for that reply, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Salford, we have an education action zone, a health action zone, a single regeneration budget programme and the sure start initiative, all of which tackle social exclusion? That can mean that families in crisis are visited by a health visitor, a welfare rights officer, a housing officer and a social worker. One of our ideas is that multi-skilled workers should carry out that range of tasks so that families in difficulty have a single worker who is their advocate and ambassador, helping to improve their lives and ensuring that all the initiatives work for them.

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. Many local authorities choose different mechanisms to deliver the policies that now exist for them to implement in their communities. We have cited Salford as an example of good practice, but other authorities use different mechanisms more suited to their communities. We are doing our best nationally to join up the policy targets as well as ensuring that the money available from different Departments goes down to local areas in one go. I am sure that that will make a difference.

If she will make a statement on the progress with introducing information technology into government. [120440]

On 31 March, we published "e-government"—a strategic framework for public services in the information age. Departments have been asked to set out their e-business strategies by October 2000, with the e-envoy reporting to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the contents and progress in December 2000.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I urge him in developing Government policy on the information age to have due regard to all those in our society who have difficulties and find information technology a challenge? May I also urge him to ensure that we make use of the possibilities of the new computer platforms that will be available in post offices, especially in rural and suburban communities?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. E-business and e-government are meant to provide an additional service, not to exclude anyone. While there is a demand for face-to-face meetings, the Government are committed to providing such services. The e-service is an additional service.

In the distractions of last Thursday, we were unable to obtain a statement on the implications of the love bug computer virus, which is obviously important in the context of the Government's IT programme. Can we be assured that the work that is being done following on from realising the benefits of Y2K will take account of threats from such bugs? When will a statement be placed in the Library on the implications of that virus for government?

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. What happened last Thursday with the love bug is being assessed in the Cabinet Office. When that assessment has taken place, it will be possible to make a full statement, except on security matters.

Can the Minister tell us exactly when the love bug hit government technology; whether, as in the United States, the Government received any prior warning; and whether they warned business as a result of any such prior warning?

There was no prior warning. The first time that the Cabinet Office knew about the love bug was on the morning of 4 May. We took immediate action, and because of the defences against viruses already in place in the Cabinet Office, less damage and destruction was done to the systems than otherwise would have been.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 May.

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.

My constituent Nicole Wanford is raising two young children by herself working for an income of just over £200 a week. When her employer tried to help her by giving her a bonus of just over £600, the state confiscated £439 in tax and withdrawn benefits. In the light of those facts, does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who thinks that the working families tax credit—this massively expensive scheme—will help to eradicate poverty, or with my hard-working constituent who knows that it has made it impossible for her problems to be solved?

I obviously do not know about that particular case, but the working families tax credit is helping 1.25 million low-income families. Many of them to whom I have spoken are benefiting by £15 or £20 a week. What they should really know is that its entirety would be scrapped by an incoming Tory Government.

May I express sincere congratulations and thanks from the people of Northern Ireland to the Prime Minister, and to the Taoiseach, for the successful conclusion to their endeavours, not just on Thursday and Friday last, but during the many weeks before?

I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says. Those beatings are barbaric and have no place in any civilised society. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that loyalist paramilitary weapons must be treated in exactly the same way as republican weapons. They would do equal damage were they to be used, and not put beyond use as they should be.

I support all the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). From this side of the House, we welcome the statement by the IRA and the renewed hope for full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The eyes of the world will now be on paramilitaries, loyalist and republican, to see that they implement that side of the agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman's opportunism knows no bounds. No sooner has he had to conceal his disappointment at the Rover deal than he leaps on Ford. As for manufacturing jobs, what he omitted to tell the House is that in the first two years of the 1990s, under his Government, 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost.

To thousands of people working in manufacturing today, that kind of answer is no longer good enough. Slogans from past elections are irrelevant to the 21st century. Let us hear the actual facts—the actual facts from the House of Commons Library, independently respected. The number of employees in manufacturing in Great Britain has fallen by 206,000 since the general election.

entrepreneurs are being distracted from running and growing their businesses by the cumulative burden of taxation and…regulation.

Perhaps I could quote something to the right hon. Gentleman about regulation.

We passed volumes of new rules and laws interfering in almost every aspect of business and social life.

The actual figure is £10 billion for red tape and regulation. The weakness of the euro is not the only problem of manufacturing industry; the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman's Government is an additional problem. Why is what Lord Haskins said not written in that folder that he is always consulting? There must be something in that folder other than "If pressed, waffle for as long as you can."

I note that, on Ford, the right hon. Gentleman has not a single constructive solution to offer. As for manufacturing jobs, many are also being created. In the past few months, jobs have been created at Vauxhall and IBC Vehicles; 1,300 jobs have been created at Nortel, 1,000 at Honda and 1,000 at Quantax.

We have to get used to the idea that a strong currency is not a bad thing. It is a reflection of a strong economy.

The Prime Minister will be well aware of the extent of worries about pensioner poverty throughout this country. Will he do his utmost to have a vigorous uptake campaign for the minimum income guarantee and will he look at the group of pensioners who have been thrifty throughout their lives, who have some pension and who have some savings? Will he take on board their needs in the pension review?

Yes, we will. Perhaps I should explain that, in this Parliament, we will be spending some £6.5 billion more on pensioner incomes than was forecast by the previous Government. That is, incidentally, £2.5 billion more than the cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings, but what we have done is to try to target as our first priority those who are poorest. One million of the poorest pensioners will be up to £20 a week better off as a result of our changes. Also, the winter allowance, now at £150, is paid tax free to pensioner households and is outside the benefit system, as are the free TV licences for the over-75s, so, again, it helps those in most need, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We now have to ensure that those who are above benefit levels and below income tax levels who have saved all their lives are given the help that they need.

Will the Prime Minister concur that, of all the various electoral messages that were sent at the last diet of elections at the end of last week, by far the most telling was the verdict of Romsey? [Interruption.] Given that that is obviously taken as read, may I say to the Prime Minister that the serious verdict from Romsey was not a party political one? It was a triumph for the politics of hope and the future in our country, as opposed—[Interruption] that is all we need to know: just look at them—as opposed to what the Conservatives endeavoured to achieve, which was the triumph of the politics of fear, division and prejudice. That is the issue.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on her victory in that by-election. Secondly—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members are on about us losing our deposit in that by-election. I would have thought it rather worse to have lost one of the Conservative's safest seats in the entire country. If that had happened to us just before the last election, we would have been slightly concerned, but do not worry—carry on being unconcerned.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on that reply—I could not have put it better myself. However, will he also acknowledge that what came through loud and clear from Romsey, from voters of all political persuasions and of none, was the genuine feeling—I follow the question just asked by my neighbouring Member, the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)—that pensioners are getting a raw deal from the Administration? [Interruption.] Would the Prime Minister therefore—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Kennedy, speak up.

Would the Prime Minister acknowledge the legitimate concerns of pensioners in this country who want, in the words of the most recent Labour manifesto, to share increasingly in the increasing prosperity of the nation?

I am afraid that, there, the consensus must end, although it was a great relationship while it lasted. On the right hon. Gentleman's point on the basic state pension, I remind him—not just to make a political point, but to make another one which I shall come to in a moment—that the 1997 Liberal Democrat manifesto stated:

The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.

We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below Income Support level.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the people of Reading not only for their imaginative city centre—which the Minister for Local Government visited last week—but, in common with the people of Romsey, rejecting the Conservative party's right-wing racist claptrap and re-electing their Labour council with a record majority?

I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend and his council. Of course, the almost 900,000 extra jobs in the economy played a part, too.

Events in west Africa emphasise the importance for Britain of naval power. They also emphasise the importance for Britain of retaining its shipbuilding industry. Appledore, in my constituency, has been asked to tender for two new tank-carrying vessels. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that tenders from overseas companies will be carefully scrutinised for subsidies, and that he and the Government will support British shipyards such as Appledore which have a track record of building high-quality ships on budget, on time, every time?

Of course we will do what we can to support the shipbuilding industry. Moreover, we will not only do that within the rules, but will ensure that other countries keep to the rules also. I was delighted to hear that Appledore has just been awarded a second contract for a fisheries patrol vessel. My understanding is that a consequence of that order is that Appledore has been able to rescind all 300 redundancy notices that it had to issue when no orders were in prospect. That is excellent news. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the company, and I wish them well in the future.

Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to our service personnel who, at this moment, are doing such a vital job in Sierra Leone? Does he agree that that crisis and similar crises in other African countries show the increasing need for co-ordinated, stronger United Nations peacekeeping and intervention forces to deal with such problems?

I agree with that last remark. Obviously it is important that British troops are in Sierra Leone at the moment to organise an evacuation and secure conditions to ensure the safety of our citizens. The paratroopers, as ever, are carrying out their mission with great efficiency. The evacuation is continuing. It is likely to take several more days—possibly a week—to ensure that our people in the outlying areas are brought to safety. It is right that I should also take this opportunity to condemn completely the activities of Mr. Sankoh and the Revolutionary United Front. It is important that we do everything that we responsibly can to safeguard democracy in Sierra Leone. This country has played a very great part in doing that in the past couple of years and we should continue to do so.

In the United States, police numbers have gone up and crime has gone down. In the United Kingdom, under this Government, police numbers have gone down and crime has gone up. Why do not the Government fund a really effective police force?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Crime has fallen under this Government. What is more, the previous Government, when he used to support cut police numbers for their last three years. Crime was falling at the time, but what most people remember about the previous Conservative Government is that they doubled crime.

The UK Safety Group in my constituency, which produces footwear for the military, has just announced the closure of a factory and the loss of 65 jobs. It says that the only way it can maintain and retain defence contracts is by outsourcing its work to Brazil, where workers are paid scandalously low wages. Surely that cannot be right. Will the Prime Minister intervene to look at the defence contracts and help to ensure that those jobs are kept in Blaenau Gwent, which is one of the poorest communities in the United Kingdom?

I shall certainly look into that case, but I have to say once again that it is important that we realise that, particularly in a modern global economy, there will be jobs lost and jobs gained. We should do everything that we can to protect the jobs that we can protect and to help people who lose their job to get another job. We shall do that. I shall look into the particular circumstances of my hon. Friend's constituency case, but it is important that we emphasise to people that there is a limit to what the Government can do. We should do what we can do, but not pretend that we can protect people against every aspect of competition in a global economy, because it would not be right to say that.

This morning, the Conservative members of the London Assembly reconfirmed their manifesto pledge to oppose congestion taxes in the capital. Does the Prime Minister expect the Labour members of the Assembly to stick to their manifesto pledge and join us in opposing congestion taxes?

I am sure that the Labour members will abide by their election pledge.

So will the Prime Minister make it clear to the new mayor of London that there is no point in even trying to introduce congestion charges, since the Labour and Conservative members together will vote against them with a two-thirds majority, and the idea should therefore be abandoned today?

Consensus appears to be breaking out on every side this afternoon. I cannot see many advantages in the situation, but one advantage is that I am not responsible for the new mayor. However, I am responsible for the Labour members and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will abide by their manifesto. I am sorry if my answer took him by surprise.

Nothing that the Prime Minister says takes us by surprise any more. The Prime Minister is directly responsible for the new mayor, because the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour got him elected. The Prime Minister is also responsible for the Labour candidates who pledged no congestion taxes. Now that he is on our side on congestion taxes and has said that he is against them and expects the Labour members to stick to their pledge, will he join us in the House of Commons tonight in voting to save the rest of the country from this crackpot scheme of the Deputy Prime Minister?

No, we will not. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first time that congestion charges were mentioned as a part of Government policy was under his Government, shortly before the general election. As for the Labour members of the Assembly—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has had to ask me this three times to get the same answer—they will abide by their manifesto.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning, 16 social service care managers in Kent received redundancy notices as a result of the fact that, one month after setting its budget, Conservative-controlled Kent county council is already £10 million overspent?

I do not know whether I can promise absolutely to meet the Tory leaders in Kent, but I hope that people up and down the country realise what happens when the Tories are in charge of basic public services. When we came to office we found that in the health service, they had cut the number of nurses and the number of hospital beds. The hospital building programme had stalled and there was underinvestment in the national health service. What is happening in social services in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere shows why it is important that we never let the Tories back again.

This country now tops the European league table for asylum seekers. Does the Prime Minister still believe that three detention centres will be sufficient, or should there be a fourth?

I suppose that at least the right hon. Gentleman had the courage the raise that issue, which is more than can be said for the Leader of the Opposition. In relation to asylum, of course the key factor is that the measures that were introduced in April will make a difference. They include the withdrawal of cash benefits, penalties for those bringing in illegal immigrants, and, as we said a long time ago—it was prefigured back in the July 1998 White Paper—we will increase the number of detention centres. However, detention centres are for people whose applications have been turned down. We will not follow the advice of the Conservative party and lock up every single applicant. That would be hugely expensive and it would certainly be unlawful.

One day, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question about something other than Rover, but today is not the day. Will he join me in congratulating John Towers and his team on proving all the critics wrong and acquiring Rover Cars for the Phoenix consortium? Does he agree that the great thing about the Phoenix bid is that it has been a real co-operative effort involving the trade unions, who have been magnificent, and the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from day one? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the real tribute has to go to the workers at Longbridge and their families, who have had to put up with the most appalling uncertainty for too long? They have come through that and can now get on with what they do best—making quality cars that people want to buy.

They do make quality cars. As my hon. Friend said, it has been a co-operative effort and we pay tribute to Mr. Towers and to the trade unions. I certainly pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the immense amount of work that he did. The work force have earned their colours here and they have done quite magnificently. It is as a result of their dedication and the faith in them that Mr. Towers was able to put together his bid. We wish it well and we stand ready to help in whatever way we can. For those people who will lose their jobs—who are now, thankfully, far fewer in number—we stand ready to help with money, investment and advice on getting a new job.

As there is still widespread public concern about the high level of crime and the low rate of detection, following his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), does the Prime Minister agree that another lesson of Romsey is that populist, simplistic and inappropriate solutions to that issue were clearly rejected by the electorate? If he agrees, will he and his Government please reconsider their populist and ill-considered proposal to remove from many innocent people the right to choose trial by jury, which he opposed at the general election? Will he instead take measures that defend the liberties of the innocent and secure the prevention of crime and its better detection, which that does not do at all?

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the right to trial by jury. This is a change that was recommended by a royal commission. It is supported by the Lord Chief Justice. It is unquestionably right. In Scotland, for example, such a right in those terms has never existed, and no one has ever complained that the criminal justice system in Scotland is flawed as a result.