To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to review the budget available for training programmes.

The results of a review of the whole of my Department's spending plans were published in the Chancellor's autumn statement. The public expenditure settlement provides both the resources needed for training programmes and the flexibility to deploy those resources to best effect.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that unemployment is rising and set to rise further, that there are skill shortages throughout Britain and that Britain is massively less skilled than our European competitors? Given that situation, how can he possibly defend the £300 million cut in real terms in his Department's budget set out in the autumn statement? Is not that a disaster for our future competitiveness in Europe?

The hon. Lady has misunderstood the position. We are increasing planned spending on youth training, increasing spending on TVEI—the technical and vocational education initiative—and we have been reviewing the way in which we can most effectively help the long-term unemployed. We are making available up to 100,000 places in job clubs and on job interview guarantee schemes as well as introducing other ways in which to help the long-term unemployed more effectively. We shall still be spending some £750 million next year on employment training.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, throughout his welcome experiment on training and enterprise councils, one of the principal difficulties that the chairmen have brought to his attention has been the lack of flexibility in the way in which they can apply their funds? I hope that he will accept from me a warm welcome to his recent proposals to free up the use of funds to give the chairmen much greater responsibility.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right about the importance of the flexibility for which the TECs have been asking. His warm welcome for that flexibility has been echoed by the chairmen of the TECs. The TECs are now well beyond the experimental stage. There are 82 in place across the country, forming a complete network, and no fewer than half of them—41—are now fully operational.

With the worst balance of payments deficit in this country's history, with skill shortages in every tradeable sector of industry and with the single European market nearly upon us, which of our main competitors would even contemplate cutting £500 million from their training budgets in the next two years? If that is not for them, why is it for us in the Secretary of State's plans?

The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at the statement that has been made and devote his attention to the increased resources that have been made available for training our young people and giving them the necessary skills. He should also reflect on the fact that he has totally failed to persuade the shadow Chief Secretary that training should be one of the two priority areas to which the Labour party is prepared to commit extra spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to put up or shut up.

rose——

Defend Heseltine against that ruthless attack by the Secretary of State—a Thatcher sycophant.

You cannot bring Heseltine into everything.

Order. This should be a question to the Front Bench.

It is not just the money that the Government spend which matters, because, lamentably, the trade unions and industry do not spend enough money on training their own seed-corn labour for the future. Government money should be spent on encouraging industry and the unions to back labour training schemes because they are the people who will produce for tomorrow.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the importance of investment in training by employers. That investment has been steadily increasing, but I agree that it needs to increase even further. The TECs, as employer-led bodies in local areas, are in an unrivalled position to persuade fellow employers to do what needs to be done to increase their investment in training and to ensure that that investment is deployed even more effectively than it has been up to now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies the Government intend to introduce to help small businesses expand to create more local employment prospects.

The Government will continue to give priority to maintaining the best possible business environment and, in particular, the control of inflation and the reduction of unnecessary controls and red tape. This will benefit all small businesses, whether they are established or just starting up. At local level, training and enterprise councils are taking over responsibility for the delivery of many enterprise support schemes and are ideally placed to ensure that such support is geared to the needs of local businesses.

None of that will give any comfort to those who currently run small businesses, especially in the textile and footwear sector. Is the Minister aware that one job is lost every 30 minutes in each of those industries? Is he further aware that if that trend continues, there will not be a British textile and footwear industry left by the turn of the century? When shall we have reasonable, decent proposals from the Minister rather than the nonsense that he has talked today?

The hon. Gentleman must get tired of peddling stories of doom and gloom. It is regrettable that he is unable to say something positive even about the industries for which he alleges great support. It is encouraging to note that, even in the present difficult economic climate, there is a remarkable resurgence of new industry, with new people coming forward and new businesses being set up. That is what we are encouraging and shall continue to encourage and one of these days it will receive acknowledgement from the Opposition.

It is not so much expansion but survival that is important for village shops. In my constituency, 12 village shops have closed since the introduction of the uniform business rate. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the maintenance of existing shops and small firms rather than the expansion of those that have not yet come into being?

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the need to make a distinction, of which I am aware, between encouraging new small businesses—we are remarkably successful at doing that—and the position of existing businesses, in the retail sector and elsewhere. The uniform business rate has had varying effects in different parts of the country, as was the intention from the start. My colleagues at the Department of the Environment have taken great care to try to ensure that the burden of the uniform business rate is limited to the extent that it affects businesses adversely. I hope that the businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency will come to my Department for advice and help, which is available in many different ways, so that they have the best possible chance not just of surviving but of prospering.

Does the Minister accept that the loss of transitional relief under the uniform business rate when businesses move premises can not only restrict expansion but make it difficult for businesses in difficulties to scale down? What assessment has his Department made of that and has the hon. Gentleman made any representations on the subject to the Secretary of State for the Environment?

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me on to territory on to which I dare not stray—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because another Government Department is responsible for that, as Opposition Members well know. [Interruption.] I am in touch with my colleagues at the Department of the Environment constantly to monitor the varying effects of the uniform business rate on small businesses. If hon. Members contact me with details of specific cases, I undertake to raise them with my colleagues in that Department to see what can best be done. [Interruption.]

Order. I urge hon. Members not to barrack in such an unseemly way. It is very disruptive.

At this time of undoubted recession, when small businesses are being hit particularly hard, it is important for them to be able to retain the greatest proportion possible of their hard-earned profits. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility in the next Budget of introducing relief against corporation tax on the first £500,000 of the profits of small businesses?

The one thing that I cannot undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the word used by my hon. Friend, which I certainly would not dream of discussing with the Chancellor. My hon. Friend raised an important point and I hope that he will agree that we have gone a long way to ensuring that small businesses have one of the lowest rates of both personal and corporate taxation in the developed world, with the favourable rate for small businesses. Our remarkable success in setting up small businesses has reflected that in full. I am making representations on behalf of the small business community to our friends in the Treasury. I shall think carefully about my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many wages inspectors are now in post; and how many were in post in 1979.

In 1979 there were 158 wages inspectors. The greatly simplified wages orders resulting from the Wages Act 1986 allowed the then complement of 120 inspectors to be adjusted to the present total of 71. There are currently 70 inspectors in post.

May I say how much I agree with your strictures about barracking, Mr. Speaker? It is disgraceful, just like the figures given by the Minister. It is no surprise that so many employers break the law in view of the small number of inspectors. Why are the Government so soft and selective on law breaking? Apparently it is okay for Rupert Murdoch to break the law, seemingly with the connivance of the Prime Minister, and it was all right in 1989 for 5,528 employers to underpay workers in wages council sectors. Why are the Government soft on those law breakers? Is it because robbing the workers is no crime in the Tory book?

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, displays an appalling lack of knowledge as to how the system works. The truth is that 96 to 97 per cent. of workers are paid the statutory minimum or above, so the non-compliance rate is low. The crucial factor is that not only do inspectors target employers and premises to ensure that they home in on those that they suspect may be in breach of the regulations, but when they find them, they use methods of persuasion and information—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. The hon. Gentleman may have a blood lust for prosecutions——

Yes.

We are much more concerned with the employees' interests and to try to ensure that the employer will continue in business and pay the wages required by the regulations. That is a far more fruitful way of approaching the issue than that which the hon. Gentleman seems to favour.

As 57 wages inspectors to inspect the wages of more than 20 million people must be but a drop in the bucket, would not it be a good idea to clear away the whole system and save the taxpayer some money?

I know that my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful, but I will quote from my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment, who said earlier this year:

"I have decided not to proceed with the abolition of the councils for the present."

"I therefore intend to keep its operation under close review."—[Official Report, 6 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 541.]

Has not the Minister just let the cat out of the bag? Is not the reason why we do not have a prosecution policy for underpayment and why there are so few inspections of premises and wages inspectors the fact that the Government intend to let the wages council system wither on the vine? The Minister accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of being wrong, but the Minister is being outright misleading, because the reality is that 30 per cent. of firms visited were found to be underpaying their employees in one form or another. Is it not about time that the party of law and order made the law work in everyone's interests? When low pay in this country is a growing problem, as it is, Ministers have a responsibility to do something practical, get the inspectors in and get the prosecutions coming.

The hon. Gentleman obviously formulated his supplementary question before I gave my earlier answer, as he is apparently unaware of what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall therefore repeat it. The inspectors target their visits on those whom they suspect may not be paying the minima, which is why the non-compliance rate among those targeted is the higher figure that he mentioned, but the overall rate is as I stated earlier. The total non-compliance rate among employers is small. We and the inspectors believe that using persuasion and information is a much better way of dealing with the problem than blundering in with fines and penalties on small businesses which could be put out of business. There is no point in putting people out of business and destroying jobs in an effort to apply minimum wage levels.

Does my hon. Friend agree that minimum wage legislation can only create unemployment among those receiving low wages, who are among the most vulnerable in our society? Is he therefore surprised by the Opposition's enthusiasm to introduce such legislation?

Indeed, it is worse than my hon. Friend suggests. The truth is that if there were a statutory minimum wage of 50 per cent. of average pay, which I understand may be the policy of the Labour party, my Department estimates that 750,000 jobs could disappear as a result. If the Opposition want to be responsible for the destruction of 750,000 jobs that must be on their heads —it certainly will not be on ours.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the closure of employment rehabilitation centres.

I know that the lion. Lady has important and valuable experience in this area. In the consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", we announced plans for an improved employment rehabilitation service involving local assessment teams and rehabilitation agents supported by a reduced, but substantial, network of centres. No decisions on closure of particular centres will be taken until comments have been received on how best the plans might be implemented.

I recognise the establishment of the mobile assessment teams, which I see as complementary to the existing network of centres. The consultative document makes no reference to the importance of the three residential centres, Egham, Preston and Leicester. Does the Secretary of State regard those centres as essential to the convenience and well-being of disabled people, especially the more severely disabled, and to facilitating their entry into employment? After the next election the Minister and some of his colleagues may welcome the opportunity of assessment for alternative employment.

I do not know whether we shall have the opportunity to take advantage of the hon. Lady's kind offer, but there will continue to be a need for residential facilities, whether provided directly from the centre or by agents under contract, which is the general philosophy being applied in this area.

Irrespective of my hon. Friend's comments on the contribution of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), will he confirm that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People this morning reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the disabled with a substantial increase in grants and allowances and that the Government are looking after the disabled in the way that they would expect?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. What has been done with and for people with disabilities by this Government has been one of the success stories of the 1980s.

Does the Minister accept that the Government are spending less this year on training, including rehabilitation, than they did last year and that they will spend less next year than this year? When seeking to justify that, will he mention unemployment, which is rising and will rise further as a result of joining the exchange rate mechanism? Does he accept that the Government's protestations about training will have no credibility so long as the Department acquiesces in cutting the training budget? The job of the Department is to defend that budget against the Treasury, not to acquiesce in cutting it, as it has done for two years.

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that joining the exchange rate mechanism will necessarily lead to increased unemployment. That will depend greatly on what happens in wage settlements and negotiations in the labour market, so there is a clear message for people there. Disabled people under training will continue to be part of the guarantee and aim groups in relation to employment training and we shall continue to fund the training of such groups.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as usual, the Opposition parties have got it wrong? The purpose of training is not training per se but finding people jobs at the end of training. In that context, is my hon. Friend's Department considering new ways of determining which training schemes are most effective in terms of job finding afterwards? Does he agree that such schemes need not by any means be the most expensive, as budgets are no indication of employment at the end of the day?

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is one of the thoughts behind the flexibility that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has negotiated for the training and enterprise councils. That flexibility will enable a much greater range of experimentation to take place at local level, which will be led by people who are in contact with local labour markets. To return to the question posed by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), the basic purpose of our changes is not just to increase the geographical coverage of the facilities but to enable us to tap into the wide range of expertise that exists in voluntary bodies and we shall try to ensure that it is made more available to assist disabled people into better and more appropriate forms of employment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what fresh initiatives he plans to take to encourage the development of co-operative and mutual forms of employment and ownership.

I have announced today that, as part of my Department's general policy to promote small firms, funding has been made available to provide short-term pump-priming support for projects submitted by the co-operative sector. This will be available over the next two financial years specifically for good quality innovative projects to promote co-operatives or to develop business training, advice and other strategies to improve the business performance and competitiveness of co-operatives.

I welcome the coincidence of that announcement and my question. Is the Minister aware of the welcome that was given to two commitments by his predecessor, the first being money for the co-ordination of co-operative development work following the demise of the Co-operative Development Agency, and the second being the promotion of co-operative initiatives by the training and enterprise councils? Will he assure the House that he will pursue those two undertakings during his tenure of office?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the follow-up to the commitment given by one of my predecessors. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the guidance to the training and enterprise councils there is explicit acknowledgment of their continuing responsibility to work in this area as part of the follow-up commitment that we gave earlier in the year. I am delighted to be able to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Will my hon. Friend take some care in this area? I remind him of unfortunate precedents, particularly that of the Triumph motor cycle co-operative which, if anything, accelerated the departure of the motor cycle industry from Britain.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I emphasise that there is no intention to encourage such overblown and grandiose schemes. As my hon. Friend probably heard, 1 deliberately used the words "good quality innovative projects" and went on to emphasise elements such as business training and advice. I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—there is no way in which we shall get involved in the kind of disasters that overtook the Labour party when in government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in work in the United Kingdom (a) now and (b) in 1979.

The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 27,346,000 in June 1990 and 25,365,000 in June 1979—an increase of just under 2 million over the period during which this Government have been in office.

Many people choose to take part-time jobs, but such jobs are now under threat because of European Community directives on part-time and temporary workers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Commission is proposing that all part-time staff who work more than eight hours a week will have to pay national insurance? If that is true, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a tax on jobs which could devastate the rural economy and that all hon. Members should unite to oppose it?

My hon. Friend is right, but he has identified only part of the damage that the European Commission's proposals would inflict on prospects for employment. The costs on employers, in addition to the costs on employees to which my hon. Friend referred, would run into billions of pounds. That is why we are endeavouring to persuade the Commission and other member states of the damage that these proposals would do to employment throughout the Community.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of registered disabled people out of work has more than doubled since 1979 and that this is mainly his fault, because he failed to implement the 3 per cent. quota system and in some ways is condoning law breaking? As he is letting down disabled people, what does he propose to do about finding jobs for them?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the difficulty with the quota system is that there are insufficient numbers of registered disabled people to allow employers to fill the quota. This is one matter on which we consulted in producing our recent consultation document, of which I know the right hon. Gentleman is aware. In direct answer to his question, I can say that, as I am sure he will be pleased to know, as part of the package announced last week, unemployed disabled people are to be included among the aim group for the purposes of eligibility for employment training. I am sure that many more of them will take advantage of those opportunities and will acquire jobs as a result.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the more heartening aspects of the situation is the number of people over the age of 50 who are in full-time employment? Is he aware that, at long last, British industry and commerce have recognised the value of older people and that, by and large, most are doing excellent jobs?

My hon. Friend is right. Employers are increasingly coming to recognise the value of workers aged over 50. They are getting jobs in increasing numbers and I expect that trend to continue.

What progress has been made to detect those who are claiming benefit while being employed and thereby distorting the true figures of unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have been concentrating our efforts in these matters on employers who are suspected of acting in collusion with workers and encouraging workers to break the law in this way. Our efforts are achieving considerable success and have resulted in many prosecutions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate he has as to the level of tourism-related employment in Britain; and what the figure was three years ago.

In June 1990 there were an estimated 1·43 million employees in employment in tourism-related industries in Great Britain compared with 1·28 million three years before.

Is not this excellent record entirely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend? Will he confirm that, just ahead of the Isle of Wight, Great Britain ranks fifth in the world for earnings from overseas tourism? Is not it a signpost to encourage the Government in their endeavours to introduce quality into the United Kingdom product that tonight the English tourist board will be presenting the "England for excellence" award?

Yes. Few in the House are more qualified to speak on the matter than my hon. Friend, whose constituency leads the way, in the rest of England and the United Kingdom, in our efforts to attract tourists, which are ever more successful. This pleases me, particularly with my responsibility for small businesses, and I pay tribute to our colleague, Viscount Ullswater, who is responsible for tourism in my Department. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and let us hope that the efforts will continue, both in his constituency and throughout the realm.

Is not it true that there is a deficit in invisible earnings, which have become truly invisible under this Government? Jobs in tourism are no substitute for jobs with good training in manufacturing industry which, under the Government, have been reduced by over 2 million. That has helped us to a record balance of trade deficit not met by the increase in tourism. When will the Government improve and increase manufacturing industry and restore some of the 2 million jobs that they have thrown on the scrap heap?

I regret and deprecate what the hon. Gentleman has said, on two important grounds. One is that the hon. Gentleman has hidden in what he said the welcome fact that our people are sufficiently prosperous that they decide, in ever-greater numbers, to exercise their freedom to take holidays abroad. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are a disgraceful slander on all those who do such excellent work in tourism and I am surprised that he should bring himself to make them.

May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Government Front Bench wearing his current hat? Bradford?the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not even mention the city which he represents in part?has demonstrated that the market has changed in terms of jobs and opportunities and that people want to spend money and leisure time on tourist-related activities. Bradford constituents, and my constituents in Dorset, South have shown that many new and excellent jobs can be created, to the delight of the many people from overseas and from the United Kingdom who enjoy the facilities that they provide.

It is a sign of the times that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) had to say what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should have said. That Conservative Members have to do the job of Labour Members is no more than a sign of the times.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to reduce unemployment in Lambeth.

My Department's full range of employment, enterprise and training measures is available in Lambeth to help unemployed people and others to find new jobs, to retrain or to set up businesses of their own.

Is the Minister aware that Lambeth has the highest unemployment in London and a large black population and that racial discrimination is always injurious to employment opportunities? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that some employment agencies connive at racial discrimination? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a particular allegation that Eileen Dupont of Conservative party central office gave a requirement to employment agencies that she wanted only English-rose type secretaries and to the discrimination that is implicit in that requirement? Will the hon. Gentleman investigate the matter and ensure that both the Conservative party and the Government promote principle, not prejudice?

I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters which goes back to the time when he was a Minister at the Department of Employment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most recent estimate of the total of the work force who are employed in more than one job and are thus counted twice in the employment statistics.

Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available.

Do the Government agree that there is as much truth in their job statistics as there was in the claim, made in 1945 from a bunker by Josef Goebbels just before he took cyanide, that Germany was about to win the war? Before the Government exit in similar circumstances and in a similar fashion, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confess that counting 750,000 double-jobbers twice, including 1 million non-existent self-employed in the totals and multiplying the value of part-time jobs twice corrupts the Government's job statistics into a meaningless, propagandist fantasy?

Before the hon. Gentleman engaged in such far-fetched fantasies, he would have done well to check the fact that there has been no change from the practice followed by previous Governments in these respects. However we calculate the figures, there are more people in work now than there have ever been. Opposition Members should be welcoming that fact instead of constantly trying to decry it.

When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the employment statistics, will he bear in mind the case of Terry Deane of Ealing, who was refused employment by the then Labour Ealing council —which has since been found guilty by an industrial tribunal of the most blatant discrimination—in its housing department in 1987?

I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition arrived in time to hear my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the House yet another respect in which the previous Labour Ealing council behaved disgracefully. No doubt that council was elected by, among others, the right hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

In September 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the north-west region was 232,300—[Interruption.] Labour Members must be celebrating the fact that there has been a fall of 40 per cent. in unemployment in the north-west region during the past three years.

Are not those figures unrealistic? Are not they made up of part-time workers and people who have been conscripted to phoney schemes in a deceitful way? What will be the effects of ERM entry on unemployment? Why are the Government closing job and retraining centres in Merseyside? What will be the effects of the disastrous poll tax figures on councils such as Liverpool city council, which is the largest employer in the area? What will it all mean for employment for the people of Liverpool?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that overall employment in the north-west was risen by 347,000 since March 1983, an increase of 14 per cent. There have been many significant developments. I visited the north-west only last week to open the new Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get in touch with his local TEC and give it his full support.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the second-highest level of manufacturing employment in Britain, at more than 55 per cent? Will he encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to visit Pendle early in the new year—perhaps they could come together—to see some examples of its manufacturing base?

I should be happy to make that suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has, in fact, heard it. If he cannot visit Pendle, I shall do so.

Why were the unemployed ritually sacrificed in last week's autumn statement, despite the fact that it is estimated that unemployment will rise to 2 million next year? Is the Minister aware that in regional blackspots such as Liverpool, Riverside the male unemployment level is 31·7 per cent?

The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing his speech for today's debate. Employment training remains an important programme and we shall continue to fulfil our guarantee of training for all 18 to 24-year-olds. We shall continue to provide training for the aim group, who are older than that. Our evaluation of employment training—we are about to place a summary in the Library—suggests that training may not always, in all circumstances, be the answer to help the long-term unemployed. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend recently made his announcement about jobs clubs and the job interview guarantee scheme. The hon. Gentleman should set that in the context of what he described.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his revised estimate for the numbers and value of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for 1990; and if he will make a statement.

During the first eight months of 1990, the latest period for which figures are available, overseas residents made an estimated 12·3 million visits to the United Kingdom, 4 per cent. more than in the same period of 1989. For the same period it is provisionally estimated that overseas residents spent £4,920 million in the United Kingdom, 10 per cent. higher than for the same period in 1989.

Does my hon. Friend agree that overseas visitors contribute substantially to employment opportunities, particularly in centres such as York, and will he hold urgent discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science so that more courses in hotel and catering management may be made available and so that youngsters entering that great industry are not put off by the Opposition's antics in referring to jobs for ice-cream salesmen?

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I pay tribute to the leading way in which his constituency is a tourist attraction, providing many more jobs in tourism than it has done in the past. I urge my hon. Friend to approach his local training and enterprise council and work with it to respond to local training needs, helping to boost yet further his already successful tourism industry.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.

rose——[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to behave reasonably at this time. The Prime Minister.

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

Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that her attempts to privatise the national health service have resulted in the loss of nearly 5,000 hospital beds so far this year, including 100 in the Wakefield area? Has she any idea of the pain and discomfort facing vast numbers of patients on waiting lists as a direct result of her policies?Have not we reached the stage when she should be spending more time at home with Denis, making way for a Labour Prime Minister who believes in the NHS?

Our policies have resulted in 1 million more patients a year being treated. In the past four years expenditure on the health service has risen from £24 billion in 1988 to £26 billion, to £29 billion and to £32 billion—an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since we took over. That is a very good record which would never have been surpassed, let alone equalled, by the Labour party.

What advice did my right hon. Friend give to President Landsbergis of Lithuania in support of his demand for his country's independence?

The same advice as I have given him before—that we have never recognised that Lithuania was legally annexed and, therefore, have never allowed ambassadors or consuls in that country. We recognise the difficulties that Lithuania is in now. We believe that they can be resolved by negotiations. We recognise, too, that those have run into unexpected difficulties recently and we shall do our level best to take them up so that negotiations resume.

Will the Prime Minister join me in agreeing with her new Secretary of State for Education and Science in his very firm opposition to the daft idea of education vouchers?

My right hon. and learned Friend the new Secretary of State for Education and Science said almost precisely the same as I did in the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework before he came in, he would know that.

That gives a new meaning to the word "almost". Why is the Prime Minister being so evasive about the question of education vouchers? After all, all that I asked her was whether she agreed with a Minister in her Cabinet. Why cannot she simply say that she backs the Secretary of State for Education and Science on this important question?

In fact, the Secretary of State for Education and Science backed me. [Interruption.] We said—[Interruption.]

Order. This takes a great deal of time from Back Benchers.

May I now read to the right hon. Gentleman what he should have read before he came into the Chamber? He will find that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said precisely the same as I did, and that I said precisely the same as he did. He will find it—[Interruption]. They never like the facts, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can get them out. On 18 October in oral answers to questions, I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman:

"In education we are attempting to increase choice—in city technology colleges, in grant-maintained schools and with open rolls."

"are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil."

"They are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil. That is a form of giving extra choice and of giving the voucher to the parent for the pupil."—[Official Report, 18 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1374.]

I thought that the Prime Minister had formally declared herself against stonewalling, but it appears that that does not extend to Prime Minister's Question Time.

"I have never been in favour of vouchers. I don't think they play any part in the Government's plans … I don't think you need vouchers."

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the complete answer that I gave at column 1374 of Hansard, when I pointed out that we are already introducing a pilot scheme for vouchers in training. That is Cabinet policy and in education we are increasing choice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is against increasing choice, but I repeat that, if he had read my reply, he would not have needed to ask the question. Perhaps he had better go back to bowling from the nursery end.

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to watch Sky Television—[Laughter.]

Order. We shall make very slow progress at this rate.

Last night there was an absolutely devastating exposure of conditions in Romanian orphanages. The conditions are absolutely disgusting. Will my right hon. Friend review the programme and see whether any initiative can be taken by the United Kingdom Government?

I did not see that particular television programme, but I have seen other programmes showing those conditions. Obviously it is something that we would wish to help with. When we received a request from Romania for disposable syringes, for example, we met it immediately. I am very well aware of the problem and we will look at it again.

Did the Prime Minister see today's disgraceful attack in The Sun today made by the supporters of her cause on three of her colleagues? As, in her position, she should set the standards of public life in Britain, will she take this opportunity unequivocally to condemn that attempt to smear her colleagues, undermine democracy in her party and cheapen public life?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Politics is about policy; it should never be about personal attacks on people's way of living. I totally condemn any such personal attacks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep concern is felt in our armed forces about the continual suggestions that there should be cuts in our Army manpower at a time when both the Gulf and Northern Ireland place great calls on our strength? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say categorically that our armed forces will be kept at the level that is necessary for the task facing them?

That is an undertaking that I can give. The tasks which face us are changing, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House. We are therefore looking at "Options for Change" and my right hon. Friend is coming across with policies to meet those "Options for Change" which are intended always to ensure that our defence is sure enough to meet whatever attack may come, from whatever quarter it may come.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the discussions in Geneva with King Hussein of Jordan in relation to the ecological consequences of war in the middle east.

My bilateral discussions with King Hussein did not cover this subject, as I made clear to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November. However, if a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedom and justice may be restored, tyranny will triumph with all its brutality and the environment of human rights, which we seek to extend, will have received a fatal blow.

If King Hussein is right and 50,000 million barrels of oil equivalent go up in flames, what will be the result in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and what would that do to people and the planet?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avert such a tragedy, there is one method which would do it easily—that is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw totally from Kuwait and for a legitimate Government to be restored. I do not necessarily accept King Hussein's figures —mine are a little different—but that is not the main point. Saddam Hussein's withdrawal would not put right a wrong, because of the brutality that has been perpetrated in his name, but that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Was there on the occasion referred to any discussion of the human consequences of Saddam Hussein's actions so far, such as the killing of tens of thousands of his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan by the use of poison gas and, for example, the killing and torturing of Kuwaiti citizens that is taking place even today in the territory that his armies have occupied? If we are to have such statements, let a proper balance be struck.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons both in war and on his own people, the Kurds. We were one of the foremost countries to condemn him. We believe that he also has biological weapons at his disposal. It is contrary to the law to make them, let alone to use them. We also believe that he is not far from having nuclear weapons. However, the strongest point is that the terrible brutalities and barbarities that he has perpetrated cannot just be left. Kuwait must be restored. If Saddam Hussein will not withdraw, we must do it by the military option.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.

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

May I wish the Prime Minister well in her current difficulty? Although I cannot speak for Conservative Members, many Opposition Members are rooting for her. Is the Prime Minister aware that an auction is taking place today in Sunderland of the assets of the last remaining shipyard, despite the fact that bids were received from companies that were willing, without subsidy, to build and repair ships in that yard? Is the Prime Minister aware that if she had resisted the EC veto with a fraction of the resistance that she has offered in her other European adventures, she would have enjoyed wider support? Will she take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Sunderland?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the closure of that shipyard was announced in 1988 after negotiations with the Commission in Europe. In return for the closure we had a new enterprise zone in Sunderland and a £45 million package to assist the people of Sunderland to come into new industries, the industries of tomorrow, because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we had too much shipbuilding capacity in this country. It was a reasonable deal for Sunderland and a better one than if we had put subsidies into an old industry. We could not put in extra subsidies because of our agreement with the Commission and, indeed, it would not have been the right thing to do.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.

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

As the autumn statement has been received by the financial markets and our constituents with great satisfaction, does my right hon. Friend feel that the decision to spend an extra £3,000 million on health will finally give the lie to any suggestion that the Government are not firmly committed to an excellent NHS?

Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a settlement which kept firm control of public spending, which is necessary for financial prudence. Nevertheless, it found sufficient resources to meet our commitments to the social services, pensioners and health and extra for the disabled, while at the same time redeeming some past debt, much of which was built up by the Opposition. That is an account of very good stewardship on the part of my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I congratulate them both.

I must announce that I have selected the first amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that furthermore today, because of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I should have liked to put the limit on somewhat earlier, but we have two maiden speeches today and that would have been unnecessarily harsh and perhaps unfair to those hon. Members. Therefore, I ask hon. Members who are called before 7 pm to bear it in mind that I should be most grateful and the whole House would applaud them if they could keep their speeches to approximately 10 minutes in length.

I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:

But humbly note the increasing anxiety of parents and employers that the education and training policies of Her Majesty's Government have seriously undermined choice and opportunity and placed standards at risk; express anxiety and concern that Britain's investment and achievement in education and training is leaving the country further behind its major European and other competitors; condemn Her Majesty's Government for its incompetence towards, and mismanagement of, the education service and its profound failure to fulfil its proper and necessary role in improving and upgrading the skills base of the nation; and believe that standards will only be raised and opportunities increased by a change of administration to a government committed to serious investment in the nation's future.

"The education service is in better shape than it has ever been."—[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 757.]

"opposed by left or right"

"the forces of pure reaction and the resistance to change of the trades unions—the middle class and professional trade unions in particular—who represent the deliverers of the service … the teachers."

"The National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers are now looking like powerless spectators as Kenneth Baker's reforms sweep on past them to mounting public approval."

"the manifest failure of the Baker education reforms to improve standards of learning."

I must admit that I do not know what goes on in Doncaster. However, I have made a wide-ranging tour particularly of the primary schools in my constituency. The heads of those primary schools are almost unanimous in their approval of the recent changes to the system under which they have to operate.

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that his experience is not that of almost any other head teacher in the country. Nor is it the experience of the chairman of the Kent education committee who recently wrote to parents condemning the Government's proposals for

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way in a moment.

"What an incredible disregard of human potential to accept that 60 per cent. of our children leave school at 16 while in our competitor countries that number is 10 per cent. or less."

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way in a moment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have told the hon. Lady that I shall give way in a moment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Lady does not sit down, I shall not give way to her. I have told her that I shall give way. She must simply wait her turn.

The hon. Gentleman referred to opted-out schools. I have two of those in my constituency and they are doing exceedingly well. The first has already appointed four extra members of staff and is about to appoint two more. The schools have been given 25 per cent. more cash in every subject department for equipment. They are managing their affairs infinitely better than Lancashire county council did on their behalf. We now hope that others will follow their excellent example.

I shall deal with the detail of opting-out policy later, but the hon. Lady should know that opted-out schools have had more money because of the deliberate fiddling of the formulae. Opted-out schools are being bribed and given extra cash, for which the ratepayers and poll tax payers of Lancashire have to fork out.

"radical changes in secondary schools to allow less academic children to concentrate on vocational education from 14."

"a jungle in which talent and opportunity are lost",

What the hon. Gentleman has said is extremely serious. The country will want to know now what alternatives he proposes to A-levels. He cannot undermine A-levels, which are valuable to a great many pupils, without proposing alternatives. That should be done in the same breath.

If the hon. Gentleman had waited, both would have been almost in the same breath. He knows as well as anybody that we have spoken a thousand times and published documents about our alternatives to A-levels and the reform of 16-plus education. Everyone bar the Government knows that there must be changes to 16-plus examinations.

"Minister rules out A-level changes."

"MacGregor hints at big A-level changes",

"Major changes might be needed to A-levels to increase the number of pupils staying on."

Be serious.

I am serious.

"would not be the last".

"I don't think they play any part in the Government's plans."

Plainly they will not. As my right hon. Friend and I have explained frequently, we have set out to achieve choice and money following the pupil. We have done that by open enrolment, local management of schools and the formula allocation of funds to children who go to those schools. As a result, all the aims pursued by those who advocated vouchers are being achieved by our present reforms. The idea of vouchers for schools is not on the Government's agenda,. It need not be arid will not be on the agenda, because we have found a better way of pursuing those highly desirable objectives.

I am glad to have that categorical undertaking. It begs the questions why the Prime Minister did not say so and where it leaves the Under-Secretary of State, who does not remotely take that view. The No Turning Back group has written a pamphlet proposing the extension of the education voucher system to all parents.

Under the Labour Government, when national income was not rising so quickly, the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education fell. The records of the two Governments show that we have given higher priority to education in our spending plans, and we continue to do so. The success of our economic policies has enabled us to increase spending in real terms per pupil by almost half as much again.

That is simply not correct. The Secretary of State knows that the proportion of spending under the Labour Government rose, and that under the Labour Government previous to that, for the first time education took a greater share of the budget than defence. If the Secretary of State is so proud of the Government's record, perhaps he could explain why teachers have had to suffer real cuts in pay for each of the past three years. Why, since 1979, has the central Government share of educational spending been cut by more than a quarter in real terms?

"it is intended that in 10 years"—

"all schools should be under the minimum regulations." —[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 28 July 1981; c. 21.]

"The Daily Mail has done a service to education by exposing this burgeoning bureaucracy."

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his explanation does not excuse the disparity between the different local education authorities cited by the Daily Mail. Is he really leaping to the defence of bureaucracies such as that in Newcastle upon Tyne, where the proportion of non-teaching, non-classroom staff at 54 per cent. exceeds that of classroom teachers? If the hon. Gentleman will examine the league table in the Daily Mail, he will discover that Labour councils in particular spend more on bureaucracy than they do on their classrooms, which is the Labour party's consistent approach to public services.

The Secretary of State should also examine his Department. Bureaucracy has increased over the past three or four years because of the massive growth in the demands made on the education service by Government policies. The number of civil servants in the Secretary of State's Department has increased by 131 over the past three years, and the number of inspectors has risen by 22 per cent., to cope with the unrealistic demands on it.

"We have checked the position in the summer term. We had 70 advisory teachers, 59 of whom are funded by programmes initiated and paid for by central Government, mainly the education support grant programme."

The hon. Gentleman dodged all my questions about comparisons. The city having the highest proportion of non-classroom staff is Newcastle upon Tyne, and the city having the lowest is Leeds. Both are Labour-controlled. The same variations occur in the percentage holdback for local management of schools. It betrays the hon. Gentleman's real instincts to leap to the defence of authorities that are employing most people away from the classroom, and who are holding back a bigger proportion of their budget. He defends bureaucracy rather than classroom spending.

I do not defend bureaucracy, and the Secretary of State has every reason to know that. We did not create the massive bureaucracy in town and country reorganisation: the Government did, by making repeated changes. Can the Secretary of State imagine the extent of the chaos created in an education dept by all the changes, made one after the other, to the national curriculum? Does he not appreciate that the reorganisation of local schools management—which may achieve in the long run a reduction in the number employed in the town halls and country halls—is bound to impose greater pressure initially? The Government circular acknowledges with one voice that it will mean an increase in the number of so-called bureaucrats about whom the Secretary of State complains.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene on that point?