To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the aims and objects of the employment service.

The employment service will bring together the work of jobcentres and benefit offices to provide a more effective service for unemployed people, particularly the long-term unemployed, by offering them a range of opportunities to help them back into work as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will the new employment service ensure that Sheffield employers and the unemployed in my constituency receive the same quality of service from the jobcentres?

Yes, Sir. The aim is to ensure that all our services are properly co-ordinated—particularly to help unemployed people—and I believe that the new service will result in an improvement in service to the public.

Will the Secretary of State ask the jobcentres in the Bootle area to encourage management at the Girobank to recruit labour locally rather than to send middle and top management to South Africa to recruit labour, as it has done recently? Is that not a scandal in an area with 30 to 40 per cent. unemployment?

That has next to nothing to do with the employment service or jobcentres. However, I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, if he has a point.

Will my right hon. Friend consider lifting the restriction on the Manpower Services Commission requiring it to seek a union waiver to allow community programmes to be used to clear up the storm damage? Does he agree that the obduracy of the unions is unforgivable, especially in my constituency where, unfortunately, unemployment increased last month? Will my right hon. Friend consider making a statement about the matter?

I shall certainly look at the matter further. I know of the problems that there have been in the Isle of Wight. In fact, the community programme is being used to seek to deal with some of the damage caused. I shall certainly talk to the director of the Manpower Services Commission to discover whether further action can be taken.

Will the Secretary of State admit that the reorganisaton of the employment service is intended to be used, in combination with the new power to stop benefits for six months if a person leaves a job or refuses a reasonable offer, to force people into schemes that are so low paid and poor that unemployed people will not accept them voluntarily?

That is not remotely the purpose. The purpose is to provide a better service for the public. It is not a question of hounding people off the register. If they are genuinely unemployed and seeking work they are entitled to prompt and courteous service. However, if they are not genuinely available for or actively seeking work it is the duty of the service to identify them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what fee was paid by the Ealing, North Labour party for the use of Manpower Services Commission facilities at 10 King street, Southall, for the use of personnel and computer facilities in May and June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

There are no Manpower Services Commission personnel on computer facilities at 10 King street, Southall, but 11B King street is the headquarters of Southall Community Projects Committee Ltd., which is an agency for the community programme. I understand that some facilities at the latter address were used during the election campaign for the translation of political material. Such activity is against the rules of the community programme. The agency investigated the matter and put a stop to that activity. No fee was paid by the Ealing, North labour party.

Does my hon. Friend agree that such breaches by the Labour party, or anybody else, are serious? Will he undertake to investigate correspondence, which has been sent to me, showing that at the general election the Labour candidate for Ealing, North, Mr. Benn-Junior, used the facilities extensively in his campaign, and that the national executive of the Labour party had the leader of the Labour party's speeches translated into ethnic minority languages by that very office? The matter is serious because the office's normal work could not proceed. Will my hon. Friend investigate the matter?

The translation work to which I referred related to a speech by the Leader of the Opposition. It was in the course of translation when work was stopped, and, therefore, there was no circulation of speeches from the community programme source. I shall certainly investigate the other allegations that have been made by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that No. 10 King street is actually a halal butcher shop and that it would seem most appropriate that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should be taken outside and ritually slaughtered for that piece of nasty non-information that he offered? Is the Minister further aware that the area manager, Mr. Spicer, investigated the matter and found no reason to make a formal complaint, that such translations are a normal feature of the office and that, in the past, they have also involved political speeches by Conservative Members? Will he also—[Interruption.]

Order. This is not a debate.

Is the Minister aware that Ealing, North Conservative Association has been using House of Commons stationery to circulate party political information?

That is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] It might have been before, but it is no longer a matter for me. It is a fundamental rule of the community programme that projects must not involve political activity. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for that agency to go in for translation, but not of political material. I deeply deplore that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places are available under the job training scheme ; and how many of these are occupied in the most recent period of record.

The Manpower Services Commission has provision for up to 110,000 trainees on the new job training scheme. At 25 September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 22,111 people in training.

Is not the deplorable take-up a sign that the pre-election gimmick, the job training scheme, has been a total and utter failure? Everyone in the country, especially the long-term unemployed, saw it as a pre-election gimmick. They also saw that it did not create jobs and that it was not quality training. In many cases, it was job substitution and cheap labour. When will the Government recognise that the people of this country want well-paid quality training? The incentive must be quality and pay, not compulsion.

It is precisely because we have put quality before quantity that the take-up is as it is. We believe that the principles of the JTS are entirely right : practical training for the long-term unemployed and allowances based on needs.

I wholly support the job training scheme, but is my hon. Friend aware that there is a danger of its being interpreted somewhat bureaucratically? May I send to him the case of one of my constituents who has happily completed two weeks with a company under the job training scheme, only to be told that he cannot continue because he has not been on the dole long enough? Will he look into that sort of tomfoolery?

I will certainly look into any case that my hon. Friend or anybody else sends to me.

Is not the JTS monumentally unpopular with employers, clients and those agencies that work with the MSC in running those programmes? Is it not obvious, from the Minister's answer, that less than a quarter of the number intended are on JTS, that many of those leave early, and that that is because the whole concept of working for benefit is flawed and misguided? Should he not discontinue the scheme and replace it with a much improved one?

The take-up of the JTS has been slower than we anticipated or wished. However, I believe that no one should be denied training because of the loss of income from benefit. Allowances based on needs is the right concept.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no plan for benefit sanctions on JTS?

We have no immediate plans to change the situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend of unemployment over the last 12 months.

As I announced on Thursday, there has been a record annual fall in unemployment since October 1986. New figures that I am publishing today show that there has been a record fall in long-term unemployment. Long-term unemployment fell by 169,000 in the 12 months to October, to its lowest level for nearly four years.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging news about the trend of unemployment generally, particularly for the long-term unemployed, but can he confirm that unemployment among under 25-yearolds is also continuing to fall and that it is now well below the EEC average?

I can confirm both those points. It is certainly below the average of many European countries. The latest figures show that unemployment among under 25-year-olds showed a fall of 227,000 over the past year —a reduction of 20 per cent. Unemployment among the under 25-year-olds is now the lowest for over five years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no room for complacency? May we please have real jobs for the long-term unemployed? I remind him of the early 1980s redundancies in steel, coal and textiles and the fact that many of those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs at that time in those industries are still without work. I also remind him that in the travel-to-work area of my constituency more than 10,000 people are out of work.

There is certainly no room for complacency. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the major priority must be the long-term unemployed. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary fairness, will acknowledge the great improve-ment that there has been in employment, particularly over the past 12 months.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only has unemployment in my constituency fallen by nearly one tenth in the last month, but that such is the confidence of local firms in the Government's policies that no fewer than 66 per cent. of them plan to increase labour over the next six months? Will he tell the House by how many the number of 18 to 23-year-olds in employment has increased since 1983 and by what percentage unemployment for that group has fallen?

I cannot give the figures that my hon. Friend has requested, but I can say that there has been the fall in unemployment that I referred to of almost 230,000 for under 25-year-olds. The general point is clear, and it is made clear again by the figures that I shall publish today, that long-term unemployment is coming down. As my hon. Friend reminds the House, there is no question but that new jobs are becoming available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the suspicions that surround the method of producing the unemployment figures? Is he willing to tell the House about the claims experiment, started by his Department on 1 September and to last for three months, which seeks new ways of harassing the unemployed to ensure that they leave the register and thus contribute to the claimed glowing Conservative success.

There is no question whatsoever of harassing the unemployed. Checks will certainly be made to ensure that people are available for work, but that has been the position under all Administrations.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the figures, I remind him that there has been a fall in the number of unemployed every month over the past 16 months. That has been the trend. It ill becomes the Opposition to complain about that extremely good news.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a substantial fall in the level of unemployment in my constituency over the past 16 months and that a great deal of that is due to Government-backed training schemes, which are very popular, not only with those who are looking for jobs, but with employers in the district?

That is right. It is also clear that schemes such as YTS, are leading increasingly to people entering permanent employment. It is about time that the Opposition recognised the success of those schemes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to pay a higher wage to participants in the job training scheme.

Participants in the new job training scheme are trainees and receive a training allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement, which increases when benefit rates increase.

Will the Minister explain why allowances are related to benefits and needs, as he stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)? Why do people's needs differ when they are training from their needs when they are in work?

Their needs are the same whether they are on the unemployed register or whether they are training. That is the basis of their allowances while training, and that is the right basis for them.

Is it not right that more than 50 per cent. of the unemployed have no skills or qualifications whatsoever and that we must all be in favour of a skills crusade? Therefore, every penny available should he spent on training, and that is what the job training scheme involves. It ensures that people get skills to get employment. Unless they have skills, they will continue to be unskilled, unqualified and unemployed.

Exactly so.

Is it not obvious that if the JTS and community programme are merged, the community programme will turn out to be as much a monumental flop as the JTS, and for exactly the same reason, namely, that payment at or near benefit levels smells of industrial conscription? Will the Minister confirm that benefit-plus will be much nearer £5 a week than the £15 a week mentioned by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the election campaign? Will he also confirm that of the 80 per cent. of present members of the community programme who are single, that represents a cut in pay of almost 50 per cent. from £67 a week to about £35 a week? That is scandalous, and it is the biggest cut in low pay yet engineered even by this Government.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are considering the future of adult training, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will make a statement as soon as possible. However, it must be night to pay allowances based on needs, purely because no one should be denied training by the drop in benefit that that would otherwise entail. One of the disadvantages of the community programme is that it appeals only to those at the lower end of the scale, for example, unmarried people, and not to those who are married with families, for whom it represents a big loss in benefit. That is one of the difficulties with the community programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the future of industrial training boards.

The representations that we have received most recently have concerned our proposals to appoint additional members to the boards, together with representations concerning the role of the engineering industry training board.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that while some industry training boards may have some continuing and residual usefulness, others have become burdensome and oppressive to the industries that they are supposed to serve? Should not their continuing existence be reviewed?

My hon. Friend is right to say that before the last series of reforms many employers felt that these boards represented an unnecessary burden, and that is why we reduced their numbers. Having said that, we keep under review the future of industrial training boards, which obviously includes the EITB.

Is it not a fact that when employers approached the Government to reduce the number of industrial training boards they undertook to deal with the shortage of skills, yet in several questions today it has been pointed out there is a serious shortage of skilled people? Is that not an indictment of what happens when the number of industrial training boards is reduced?

If industrial training boards are not doing their job, that can be the case only if the non-statutory training organisations are doing theirs properly. There are some good NSTOs and some bad ones. Currently, studies are considering the effectiveness of those training organisations, and we shall consider the position in the light of what we hear.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some trade unions are still set on demarcation? Is that why the construction industry training board is opposed to the multi-skill courses? Is it not sensible for a plasterer to be able to tile, or vice versa, in case it rains?

In this day and age the mere mention of demarcation has a very dated sound to it. It is fair to say that in some industries the concept dies harder than in others. One of the matters with which we must get to grips is that the days when apprenticeships were done purely on a time-serving basis have long since passed.

Was not the Secretary of State's announcement last Friday of a further review of Government skillcentres, which have already been cut from 90 to just over 50, simply a device to cut the number by half again to pave the way for the real objective of the Government—the privatisation of training? When will the Secretary of State get the message that the private sector in Britain already provides the worst trained work force in Europe? It is because we spend only one twentieth of the comparable training bill of Germany, Sweden and other European countries that a public sector lead is vital. The number of skillcentres should be increased, not cut.

The skills training agency stands or falls on its ability to deliver training efficiently and at the right price for our work force. We need no lectures from Labour Members about our record on training. In 1979–80 Britain was spending only £458 million on youth and adult training; this year we shall spend £1·8 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in full-time jobs ; and what were the comparable figures in June 1979.

In June 1987 there were 18,737,000 people in full-time jobs in Great Britain and a further 5,622,000 in part-time jobs. In June 1979 there were 19,950,000 in full-time jobs and 4,817,000 in part-time jobs. In the past 12 months, 372,000 new jobs have been created, of which the majority—206,000—were full time.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that those figures are a clear demonstration of the real nature of unemployment in Britain today? Will he acknowledge that more than 1 million highly paid and highly skilled full-time jobs have been lost since the Government took office, but the replacements that he has managed to find are part-time and poorly paid?

I do not remotely accept that criticism. One of the reasons for the loss of jobs was that the Labour Government failed to take the necessary action in the 1970s, and that led to a job shortage. There has been an increase in the number of full and part-time jobs in Britain, and I should have thought that any sensible person would welcome that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that very many people welcome the opportunity to add to their family income by taking on a part-time job? Does he further agree that, as industry and commerce generally increase their productivity and output, part-time jobs often become full-time?

I entirely agree with both the points that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge, has made. The labour force survey showed that most people working part-time do so because they want to. Indeed, for married women with children, part-time work is one of the only options open to them.

Despite the figures that the Secretary of State has given, is he aware that currently 124,000 people are unemployed on Merseyside? There are 28 people chasing every vacancy. Despite the propaganda, particularly from Tory party conferences, where chal-lenges and gauntlets are thrown down and unemployed people are denigrated by the likes of the Bournemouth window cleaner, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when 55 people went down from Merseyside they found only five vacancies in the Bournemouth jobcentre? The Merseyside unemployed want decent jobs, decent rates of pay and proper training.

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that new jobs are being created on Merseyside. He also knows—or should do — that the number of jobs now available at jobcentres is at an all-time record high.

Rubbish.

That is a simple fact. The number of jobs that are available in jobcentres is at an all-time record high. The fact of the matter is that unemployment is coming down and that the number of job opportunities is going up.

Will my right hon. Friend note that, in the past three months, 53 per cent. of companies on Teesside have taken on staff and that 28 per cent. of companies expect to take on somebody in the next three months? Will he also note that in the past year large numbers of companies—some 6,000— registered for VAT purposes in the northern region? That is the reason why so many jobs are being created in the northern region, and it may well be time for the Labour councils that plague our region with unemployment figures displayed on every town hall to stop embarrassing themselves and the region and take those figures down.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The rate of unemployment is coming down fastest in areas such as the west midlands, Wales and the north-west. That trend is not remotely confined to the south and the southeast. The decrease in unemployment in the country is affecting every region.

Will the Secretary of State put the fall in unemployment in context? First, 20 years ago people would hardly have believed that we could have such a level of unemployment without it provoking a bloody revolution. Secondly, three quarters of new employees since 1984 are accounted for by part-time work. A high proportion of those people are doing part-time work only because they cannot get a full-time job.

The hon. Gentleman does not look at the figures that are available to him. The labour force survey shows that most people working part-time want to do so because it is an option available to them. He also avoids the point that, since 1983, some 1,362,000 new jobs have been created. What I find extraordinary about the Opposition's attitude today is that they take no pleasure in the fact that unemployment is undoubtedly coming down in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the increase of self-employment since 1983.

Self-employment has a very important role to play in the regeneration of the economy and in the reduction of unemployment. Since 1983 the estimated number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom has risen from 2.2 million to 2.7 million—an increase of about 23 per cent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Can he confirm that they represent a substantial reversal of the post-war trend in self-employment? Can he also confirm that the enterprise allowance scheme is one of the main contributory factors in achieving such a substantial increase?

The numbers in self-employment fell in the 1970s and have risen from 1·9 million in 1979. Since the enterprise allowance scheme started, almost 290,000 unemployed people have been helped by it to start their own businesses.

Is it not clear that part of the increase in self-employment has been in the construction industry, which has led to a position in which there is little training for craftsmen in the industry, safety regulations are being ignored, the cowboys are increasingly taking over and people are not getting a good deal? Is it not time that the Government faced the fact that lump labour in the construction industry is serious for its future, and is it not about time that it was stopped?

Lump labour is not a novelty of the period of this Government. Self-employment has grown and it is right that it should have done so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for the welcome reduction in unemployment on Merseyside is the fact that 6,000 people are in receipt of the enterprise allowance? Is he also aware that that figure was given out at the recent conference called "Business Opportunities on Merseyside" and at the launch of the small enterprise scheme, which my hon. Friend attended last Friday? Is it not a pity that no hon. Members from the city of Liverpool were present at either of those occasions?

Not true. I was there, and the hon. Gentlman knows it.

rose—

Order.

I did not have the pleasure of seeing the hon. Gentleman at the function that I attended and to which my hon. Friend referred. If the hon. Gentleman was there, I am glad. The EAS is certainly playing its part in improving the employment figures on Merseyside — as it is elsewhere.

The Government must know that self-employment must be seen in the light of high unemployment. We all know that self-employment rises at times such as this, as it did in the 1930s, and as it has done over the past eight years. Despite the mood of self-congratulation in which the Government appear to be this afternoon, unemployment has come down by only a fifth of the amount by which it has risen by since 1979—so that is a marginal decline. The enterprise allowance scheme will be seen to have succeeded only if it moves on to more employment and success. The evidence shows that it does not do that. It is about time the Government learnt that we need training and investment in small business.

The enterprise allowance scheme provides that. Counting both the EAS participants and the people whom they employ, for every 100 entrants to the EAS, 122 people are working three years afterwards.

In the context of unemploy-ment, does my hon. Friend agree that the increasing number of young people starting out in self-employment at an early stage of their careers is a welcome sign? Is it not a measure of the success of the Government's policy, and one of the reasons why increasing numbers of young people voted Conservative at the last general election?

It is a most helpful sign, and it shows that the enterprise culture is working.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many parliamentary constituencies have had a higher rate of increase in unemployment than Southwark and Bermondsey over (a) the past three years, (b) the past two years and (c) the past year.

On 8 October 1987 unemployment in Southwark and Bermondsey was lower than in October 1986 or October 1985, and at a similar level to that of October 1984. The numbers of parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain in which the unemployment figures show either an increase or a smaller percentage decrease in unemployment than the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency over the past three years, two years and one year were: 42; 102; and 107 respectively.

How does the Minister explain that within a mile of the City of London and the area on which the Government concentrate—the docklands—we have had a rate of increase in unemployment during the past two years that is greater than that in any other constituency in the south of England bar one? Is he aware that over the past four years we have had unemployment that has consistently been double the national average? When can my constituents expect less than 10 per cent. unemployment in the heart of the capital?

In the London travel-to-work area unemployment over the last year has fallen from 10·7 to 9 per cent. In the local jobcentres that cover the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency there are presently 746 vacancies. If the Southwark local authority had not tried to block at an early stage projects such as the Globe theatre trust, which will, we hope, create 160 direct jobs, or had been less reluctant to become involved in the community programme, local employment would be a lot better.

Does my hon. Friend agree that too often it is councils such as Southwark, with profligate and absurd policies, that drive out businesses? Such policies, let alone the outright hostility to, or obstruction of, Government schemes to help the unemployed, serve the unemployed worst.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Southwark is a classic example.

Is not unemployment in Southwark and Bermondsey and elsewhere far worse than the Minister suggests because most married women cannot register, on the unemployment register because of their stamp position, and suffer the double disadvantage of not being able to take a community programme place because the husband is unemployed?

The national rules stand and, of course, they apply to Southwark just as they apply to every other area. All our employment measures and programmes are available in Southwark and throughout London. In addition, a tremendous amount of Government money has gone into inner city areas, especially into docklands and Southwark.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to abolish the dock labour scheme.

No. As I have made clear in recent answers to hon. Members, there is no change in the Government's position on this scheme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 40 years' experience of the national dock labour scheme shows that employment controls of this kind are positive obstacles —[Interruption.]—to jobs, enterprise and success in our ports and docks and are totally discredited? Will he now count the cost of this scheme and convince himself that its repeal is long overdue?

I could hardly fail to hear what my hon. Friend said. The points that he makes have been put forcefully to us on a number of occasions, and I am sure that they will be put to us in future. In fairness, I should say to my hon. Friend that a number of major ports in the dock labour scheme are in profit. I repeat that the Government have no present plans to change the position.

If the Minister could not hear his hon. Friend I can assure him that he did not miss anything. Does the Minister understand that any hon. Member who talks about the abolition of the national dock labour scheme simply cannot remember what it was like under the old casual dock labour scheme, when many families who worked in the docks hardly got a day's work each month? The damage that has been done to our dock industry is a result of the decline in our manufacturing industry and the amount of exports going out through our ports.

If the Government took account of views such as those of the hon. Gentleman, we would still be in the age of the cart horse.

Has my hon. Friend noticed the difference in opportunities for employment between the ports that are shackled, by this scheme and the ports that are not so shackled such as Felixstowe, Dover and Rotterdam?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and of the facts of the situation.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) fails to understand that the strategy of the Government is not to take direct action on the question of the National Dock Labour Board, but, by legislation and by other means, to allow the National Dock Labour Board to wither on the vine. Examples of that are the development of non-scheme ports — that is happening now — and the Felixstowe Bill, which is intended to undermine, and at the end of the day to wreck, the dock labour scheme, which was introduced to protect workers. That is abhorrent to the Tory party.

There is a certain irony in the fact that I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position will have come as better news to my hon. Friends than my reply.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to protect and increase the number of jobs in the ports and in our exporting industries in face of the great and growing discrepancy between our port costs and those abroad, we have a choice? The Opposition will have to persuade their constituents of the need to end the dock labour scheme, or we shall need more Felixstowe Bills, or my hon. Friend will have to act. Will he please act?

I do not think that I can add anything to the last remark made by my hon. Friend, except to say that his assessment of the situation is more in keeping with reality than that of Opposition Members.

Is the Minister aware that the lack of alternative job opportunities and the growing tendency for employers to use casual labour mean that the case for the scheme is stronger than it was a few years ago, and that that is why we welcome the hon. Gentleman's answer today?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the scheme has any popularity, he should talk to his hon. Friends and see how popular registered dockers are among them.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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, including one with the Prime Minister of Barbados.

Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the Scotland Bill proposing devolution in Scotland, which was published today by Scottish Labour Members? In view of the overwhelming support for devolution, which is increasing among Conservative Members, led by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and in view of her repeated commitment to democracy, the right of people to choose and self-determination, will the Prime Minister give her wholehearted support to that Bill and ease its passage through the House?

No, Sir, and in view of what the present Leader of the Opposition said about devolution in a previous debate, he must have done a U-turn if he proposes to give it his support.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend ponder on the anomaly that, having complained about a lack of funding for housing, Camden borough council has lost £6 million in paying for accommodation that was never occupied?

That demonstrates just what a big, overspending council Camden is. The sooner the community charge is introduced, the better.

Last Friday the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said that if the Government's plans for choice in schooling end up with a segregated system, so be it. Does the Prime Minister also say so be it to segregation?

I am interested in the best possible education for parents and for their children. I do not think that the present system is giving the best possible education to all children, so we are giving them that opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about segregation, I am talking about good education.

Any Prime Minister who cannot give a yes or no answer to a question about segregation condemns herself from her own mouth. Does the Prime Minister not realise that a segregated system would not provide a good education either for those put into the segregated part or those excluded from it? Does she not realise the difference between choice and segregation? Does she not realise that choice will lead to segregation, and that segregation will be the destruction of choice and much else in our community?

I am interested in good education for all children. There have always been different kinds of schools. Indeed, that was the fundamental basis of the settlement with the churches in the Education Act 1944 and the reason why we still have church schools as well as county schools.

The Prime Minister disgraces the church schools if she puts them into any category that refers to segregation. We know that the Prime Minister is prepared to tolerate apartheid abroad. Now she is to encourage it at home.

The right hon. Gentleman should define segregation before he talks about it. I am interested in good education for all children. From the questions that he has asked today, I understand that he is not.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ashton memorial, which dominates the skyline of Lancaster, has been most beautifully restored? Can she find time to visit it?

I have no plans to visit it, but I will bear it in mind. I am delighted that such a lovely memorial has been fully restored.

In her speech last night the Prime Minister referred optimistically to a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons by this time next year. Does she intend that this country should make any negotiated contribution to that process?

No. If the right hon. Gentleman heard the speech, he will have noted that the 50 per cent. reduction applied to American and Soviet Union intercontinental ballistic missiles, and he will know that there is no question— [Interruption.] If he heard the speech, he will have heard that. There is no question of putting Britain's independent nuclear deterrent into that equation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reported comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will have given great offence to many hon. Members—

Order. The question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will never be any negotiations of any sort with the IRA or its apologists in Sinn Fein?

I give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. I would have thought it important that no one has any dealings with parties that support violence as a solution to the Irish problem.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister consider the action of a Minister regarding the cut in overtime and special payments for senior staff in the nursing profession? Does she not realise that the cut could mean the end of some of these nurses in the National Health Service, the under-staffing of major hospitals and the closing of wards? Does she realise that nurses are queueing up to leave the National Health Service? If, as she predicted at the general election, the National Health Service is safe in her hands, why has one of her Ministers had to go to the private sector at £195 a night to have medical attention?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government implemented the last nurses' review body recommendations in full from 1 April and nurses' pay has increased by around 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Various proposals are being made which may go before the pay review body. They are not yet before that review body, and it will be for it to consider them. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman says about people choosing to go to a private service rather than the Health Service, may I point out that many people do it, including some trade unions? Of course, the trade union hospital, Manor house, is still open and available to trade unions.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

Leaving the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to the Leader of the Opposition, has the Prime Minister reflected today that after every big terrorist atrocity in Northern Ireland hopes of effective cross-border action have been raised and dashed? Will she now urge the Taoiseach to back sympathy and denunciation with full police, Army and air co-ordination on both sides of the border?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is anxious at every meeting with Ministers from the Republic to ensure that security is stepped up to the very limit of the capability and capacity of the Republic. I agree with my hon. Friend that people look to us for the best security that we can possibly provide jointly. We greatly hope now that the Government of the Republic will add to their efforts by implementing the European convention.

While fully supporting the Prime Minister's declaration that she will not give in to terrorists, may I ask her to assure the House that she will resist Republican demands for interference in the judicial system in any part of the United Kingdom?

I answer that question as I have answered questions on this subject on many occasions. The future of the courts of Northern Ireland is a matter for this Government. The decisions taken are a matter for this Government, and will continue to be so.

Will my right hon. Friend, during her busy day, find time to read early-day motion 275, which calls for the abolition of the dock labour scheme? Will she contemplate the fact that in 1970, when that scheme was brought in to preserve jobs, there were 45,500 dockers and that today there are only 10,000 registered dockers? This may be considered withering on the vine. In my constituency we had 92, and now we have 18. We would like to see the scheme repealed and the jobs come back to those docks.

I understand my hon. Friend's point that we need to keep low costs in our docks to get the maximum number of jobs in this country. I have nothing further to add to what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench said about this earlier during Employment Question Time.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

Why was the Prime Minister so conveniently forgetful in her City speech last night? When commending Britain's economic example to the other G7 countries if they are to avoid recession and citing the threats to international economic stability she did not mention interest rates. Is this because Britain has the highest level of real interest rates of any major country apart from Italy?

But I did commend Britain's example to the other countries, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he does me the honour of reading the speech in full. I continue to commend the example of Britain to many other countries in Europe, because it has the highest growth rate and the fastest fall in unemployment. Of course, I indicated that, when the United States has decided precisely what action to take to reduce its deficit and we know what proposals are on the table, the G7 countries will meet and take what action is appropriate to their own particular circumstances.

Will my right hon. Friend have another look at the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which was approved by the House in July? In the light of the complete lack of discipline in the Labour party today, does she think that a salary of £40,798 payable to the Opposition Chief Whip can really be justified?

I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend got his question most beautifully in order. I confess that that order is not at the top of my priorities for the time being.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.

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

After lecturing other nations and holding up the absolute crisis in this country as a shining example at the bash in the City last night, may I ask the Prime Minister to take time on Thursday to meet a delegation of youths who are lobbying Parliament and listen to their criticisms of her Government's policies, which give the youth of this country no future and no hope?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense about the youth of this country. There is a great future and great hope. My speech must have been a good one, because Opposition Members are taking the chance to attack it so vigorously.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.

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

Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be gratified to have heard the announcement in another place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, that Pembroke lodge in Richmond park— both the gardens and the main part of the house—is to remain in public hands. Is my right hon. Friend aware of this news, and does she share the joy and relief of the thousands of people who visit Richmond park every year?

I thank my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will certainly be consulting both the local authority and interested local groups on the future use of the lodge.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister put her money where her mouth is and ensure adequate funding for the NHS for cervical cancer testing?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has made provision for cervical cancer testing in the NHS, as the hon. Gentleman in aware, and we are doing as much as we can to increase that form of testing, because we are very much aware of its importance.

Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to send a message of congratulations to the British delegation at the United Nations on its recent and robust contribution to the debate on Afghanistan, which resulted in a record number of countries condemning the Soviet invasion of that country?

It was important to try to achieve that result because, whatever the attempts at internal changes in the Soviet Union, there has as yet been no change whatever in its external policy — that is, on foreign affairs — including no change towards the occupation of Afghanistan, and we are anxious that the occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops should never be forgotten.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November 1987.

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

Will the Prime Minister also give some time today to consider the future of the Scottish steel industry? Is she aware of the growing concern expressed by Scottish steelworkers about the future of Ravenscraig, following reports that the Department of Trade and Industry is determined to privatise the industry before the next election? Will she also comment on the future of Ravenscraig against a background of EEC proposals to reduce capacity?

I have given previously in the House the undertaking that Ravenscraig would stay open for the duration of this period of the British Steel Corporation's plans. As the hon. Lady knows, it will soon be presenting its future plans and we shall consider them then.

With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the harmful effects on the Government's policies on transport; deplores the consequent reduction in the quality of service across all public transport, the increase in fares, the increased damage to the environment, inadequate level of investment, the reductions in safety standards, the complete failure to give necessary backing to British transport manufacturing industry, and the increasing priority given to profit rather than service to the customer; and calls on the Government to co-ordinate services across all modes of transport, putting the user first.

I am glad that we are having this debate today. even if it is not exactly on schedule. Having said that, I have to remind the House that this is the first debate on transport we have had since the present Secretary of State took office. I suppose it is my duty yet again to formally welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He is the sixth Secretary of State since 1979. The length of service of the previous Secretaries of State varied enormously. One lasted only 137 days. I do not know whether the present Secretary of State is getting worried, but I calculate that he is probably about one third of the way through his time at Marsham street. Each Secretary of State has left the Department with services worse and at a lower ebb than when he started. Therefore, this Secretary of State has a chance to redeem that record and make a name for himself. Sadly. on current form, he is not living up to expectations.

I want to deal with British Rail ; with its service to the customer, and British Rail Engineering Ltd. When the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box, I hope that we will not hear any alibis or excuses from him. When we question him and the Ministers at the Dispatch Box, they proclaim ad nauseam that it is up to British Rail to propose and for Ministers to dispose. That is the convenient and similar theme we hear when we try to question them about the day-to-day British Rail services. However, that is not the case. The Secretary of State and his Ministers frequently forget the three-year letter of intent of aims and objectives for British Rail, which is a sort of contract between the Government and British Rail. That was started by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and continued by the previous Secretary of State.

I assume that the current Secretary of State stands by the letter issued in October 1986, which makes it clear beyond a peradventure that the Government are the paymaster and that the British Rail board is expected to dance to the Government's tune. What is that tune? It is a simple refrain, which says that the state does best when it does least. From that ideology comes the belief in privatisation and competition. Perhaps I should put that latter point more accurately — the belief that Government should not intervene in the market unless that is absolutely essential. That ideology distorts transport services, and experience shows that it does not work.

Investment in British Rail is inadequate and based on the wrong criteria. I concede to the Secretary of State that, at present, investment in British Rail is high, averaging £600 million per annum over the next five years. However, according to British Rail's plan in 1982, that investment should have been £800 million per annum. The present rate of investment is part of the 25-year cycle of the renewal of the rolling stock. Therefore, the fact that investment is now 8 per cent. above the 1979 level is nothing to boast about.

The investment picture is clouded and shown not to be so good when we realise that much of British Rail's investment has been financed by reductions in staff, which has decreased by 23 per cent. or by more than 40,000 jobs since 1983. We know that over that period asset sales have produced £370 million and that fares have increased. In addition, the Governments's cuts in the public service obligation have again distorted the type of investment. During the past three years, the PSO has been cut by 25 per cent. and in the next three years it will be cut by a further 25 per cent., to £555 million at today's prices by April 1989.

The Government may not be willing to accept our criticisms of British Rail. I do not like having to criticise British Rail, but, unfortunately, my criticisms are valid. If the Government are not willing to accept our criticisms, they should consider two reports on British Rail that have been published recently. The first was by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport and was published just before the recent election. The second and more recent report was from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and was about Network SouthEast. I remind the House that Network SouthEast serves 18 million people and has 930 stations. That is a considerable size of business. Both reports reached a similar conclusion — that British Rail is still not getting there—and illustrate the point that investment is wrongly targeted and is distorted.

Indeed, the rules and restrictions that the Government place on British Rail inhibit its work. Hon. Members will know that British Rail's finances are covered by its external financing limit and that it is not allowed to carry forward any underspending of the EFL from year to year. In 1982–83, British Rail was £75 million underspent on its EFL; in 1983–84 it was £142 million underspent and in 1984–85 it was £115 million underspent. That money is lost, but it is money that could and should have been used and put to good use. The conclusion from such underspending is that British Rail is discouraged from investment which does not show a return within 12 months. Winning back passengers and trade takes a lot longer than 12 months to mature. If one really wants to invest to get back traffic, the investment must be made over a longer period.

The truth is that the Government encourage cost-cutting investment but not revenue-generating investment. British Rail has simply gone along with that policy. British Rail and the Government sometimes remind me of someone who has started a business course, learned the part about cost cutting but then dropped out of the course and missed the point about expanding the business through investment to generate new wealth.

British Rail should learn from its own experience when it has, quite exceptionally, followed the course of action that we advise. The St. Pancras-Bedford line received multiple investment on trains, track and signals. The effect was a 40 per cent. increase in usage, whereas if new trains only had been provided perhaps only an 8 per cent. increase in traffic would have been achieved.

Those conclusions are validated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which identified a number of respects in which quality was not up to standard. The southern region has witnessed a 16 per cent. increase in breakdowns since 1983 and a 15 per cent. increase in overcrowding since 1980. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated specifically that "performance has deteriorated significantly". Cleanliness has suffered, largely because of the staff freeze.

British Rail has investment and performance targets. It is interesting to note that, while investment targets are sometimes met, performance targets on quality are very seldom met. When challenged, British Rail simply changes its criteria.

The hon. Gentleman runs down British Rail. At one time I was a critic of British Rail's service to the West Country. However, for the past three years trains to the West Country have been remarkable. They are on time, they are clean, and one can reach Exeter in one hour and 55 minutes. I wholeheartedly recommend the hon. Gentleman to use British Rail's service to the West Country.

That is an interesting proposition. It reminds me of the country yokel who, when asked how to get to Newcastle, replied, "I would not start from here." It is not much good to those who suffer from bad services to be told, "Don't bother, brothers; it is all right in some other part of the country." I concede that there are good things about British Rail, but it does not provide quality over the country at large.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the Opposition but the Government who are running down British Rail? For example, on the midland line from Sheffield to London, trains now run every two hours whereas they used to run hourly. Furthermore, the 125 trains stop at three stations within five minutes of each other and nine times in all on the way to London.

I accept my hon. Friend's argument. There are advantages in having point-to-point trains— for example, from Manchester to London. However, there is also a case for having trains that stop and pick up passengers at other stations. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend was making a serious point. We need to get the balance right. We need a mix of through trains and stopping trains to provide choice for the customer.

Let me get back to my point, if I have not forgotten what it was. British Rail changes its performance criteria when it is challenged. The target used to be that 87 per cent. of inter-city trains should arrive within five minutes of the correct time. In fact, 77 per cent. arrived within five minutes of the correct time. British Rail now operates on a performance criterion which says that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive within 10 minutes of the correct time. That should have led to a better service, but it has not.

The story of bad service and overcrowding is repeated throughout the country. What is British Rail's answer to overcrowding? It increases the fares. When asked last summer and the summer before, "Why are you putting your prices up during the summer, when you expect a lot of traffic?", British Rail spokesmen replied, "We have to put prices up because otherwise people will use the trains and we do not have the stock to carry them." That is no way to run a railway.

We expect fares to increase next year — some in January and some later in the year —and the letter of October 1986 from the Secretary of State made it clear that the increase would be higher than the rate of inflation.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion but I have a lot to say and many of my hon. Friends want to speak.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the correct statistics on timing — I cite British Rail's own statistics — show that last year 90 per cent. of all passenger trains arrived on time or within five minutes of the correct time, compared with 84 per cent. in 1979?

The hon. Gentleman must use his source of statistics, and I must use mine. Mine come from published reports and independent advice. The hon. Gentleman must judge the quality of his brief, just as I must judge the quality of mine.

The Government have a direct responsibility for fares. A time bomb is ticking away in the EEC, and it will have a widespread effect on all public transport fares. Earlier this year, Lord Cockfield embarked on an exercise of harmonising VAT within the Community. His report was due to be announced in May. To no one's real surprise, it was not published at that time. Perhaps I am a little over-suspicious, but it is no coincidence that the report was not published when an election was due the following month. During the election, the Government refused to deal with VAT.

Several of my hon. Friends have sought to find out the Secretary of State's view on VAT on fares. They have put down parliamentary questions. I have to admit that I have a little admiration for the Secretary of State's ability to stonewall and sidestep. He transferred as many questions as he could to the Treasury. Those that he could not transfer, he chose to interpret totally differently and discussed air passenger fares and liberalisation in the EEC.

There is the prospect of VAT being applied to passenger fares. Passenger fares are extremely inflationary. They hurt the poorest the hardest. We do not know what VAT rate will be applied, but it will certainly not be less than 15 per cent. Indeed, if harmonisation takes place, average VAT will go up to 17·5 per cent. But let us stick with the possible 15 per cent. It will have a serious effect on the travelling public.

On 16 July, the Prime Minister told the House:

"Not only would this Government vote against Lord Cockfield's proposal, but a number of our European partners would do so as well."—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 1422, c 1271.]

She said that the Government would veto VAT on fuel, food and children's clothing, but she has been totally silent about VAT on fares. I want the Secretary of State to make it absolutely clear that he will veto any imposition of VAT on bus fares, train fares, or, indeed, air fares. Unless he does that, we cannot clearly see where we are going.

The work force of British Rail Engineering Ltd. have been most cynically betrayed. Promise after promise has been disgracefully broken. At the end of 1979, BREL employed 36,000 people. The British Rail plan envisaged that the company would expand to a work force of 43,000 by the end of 1984. In 1980, a new rail plan was instigated by the Government. In 1982, 5,500 employees had gone from BREL. In 1984, 1985, 1986, and twice this year, there have been further reductions in the work force. They will bring the current work force of only 10,000 down to 7,500 by April 1988. Further job losses are projected. The BREL plan for 1991, shows that there will be nothing left.

On each and every occasion that we have been told of reductions in the work force, we were told that job losses were necessary to protect the future. The same tired old excuse has been trotted out every time — that modern rolling stock requires less maintenance. As an engineer, I can see that there is some truth in that. If there is less maintenance, there is less work. But that is not the whole story. British Rail's procurement policy has an even greater significance for the future of BREL.

Before I deal with a general point, I shall refer to a more specific one. Hon. Members will recall that there was a contract for bogies for coach stock to be manufactured by Metro-Cammell. It was withheld from BREL on the ground that it was not ready to meet British Rail specification. BREL maintained that it could develop the bogies and meet the specification, but it was told by British Rail, "We cannot wait. We must place the order." Instead, the order was placed with a Swiss company. It is widely believed that that Swiss company cannot meet I he specifications. Unattributable sources within BREL confirm that speculation. Let us say that it is only speculation at the moment. I ask the Minister to give a firm guarantee that he will immediately conduct a full inquiry into this lamentable state of affairs and have the contract re-examined. He can do no more and no less for the people who work in BREL.

It seems to me that British Rail's procurement policy is governed by the Serpell report, which advocated buying abroad in the interests of economy. It must be the only report that has been apparently officially pigeonholed that still exerts a malevolent influence over such a wide-ranging part of British Rail's policies. There is a grave danger that Britain's manufacturing capacity and export potential will be severely damaged. British Rail makes a virtue of the fact that it is undertaking the most extensive traction and rolling stock renewal programme for 30 years. No one would dispute that that is long overdue. The programme in total is worth £1,100 million. That is big money ; many jobs in Britain could be provided if those orders were placed in the United Kingdom.

Tenders for the class 60 locomotives were invited from a number of overseas manufacturers as well as from manufacturers within the United Kingdom. The closing date for the tenders was last week and I inquired this morning of British Rail about them. I am glad to tell the House that only three tenders were submitted for that work which will cost about £100 million. The three companies that have submitted tenders are GEC, Metro-Cammell and Brush. They are all British companies, and I welcome that. I believe that foreign companies did not submit tenders because our legitimate outrage that that work might go abroad frightened them off. I hope that the company that receives the tender will be successful in delivering the product.

I have no doubt that British Rail and the Government will defend the decision to invite overseas bids on the ground of economy. Despite the outcome of that tendering, the point still needs to be made that no other state-owned railway system in Europe would contemplate orders of that magnitude and importance going outside its national boundaries. If SNCF were even to think of allowing companies outside France to tender for any of its rolling stock or traction units, the French Government would rapidly step in and ensure that the work stayed in France. We have defended British manufacturing industry, but it remains the Government's responsibility to protect it in the future because other orders will arise in the next few years.

British Rail investment targets set by the Government lead to some startling conclusions. One conclusion is that the electrification of the east coast main line will stop at Edinburgh. British Rail steadfastly refuses to consider the electrification of the Edinburgh-to-Aberdeen line because it will not be "commercially viable". I remind the Government and British Rail that it is a national network and that the east coast main line is part of a network from Aberdeen to London and return or, as some hon. Members prefer, from London to Aberdeen and return. I doubt whether, if the Edinburgh-London part of the network were costed sectorally between the different stopping stations referred to earlier, it would be viable at intermediate points.

The total distance was considered. The whole matter must be looked at again. Similarly, I urge the Government seriously to reconsider their attitude to the Dornoch-Firth rail bridge because I believe it is essential to the socioeconomic future of the north of Scotland.

There are many topics to be discussed, and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I am sure that some of them will take up issues such as London Regional Transport, bus deregulation and safety on our roads, in our sea lanes and in our air space. I do not believe that we should discuss the Zeebrugge incident, because the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering a report. However, I must say that the Government have not acted with sufficient urgency on safety. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will discuss that.

I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not giving advance warning, but on Sunday evening, on the "Watchdog" television programme, an allegation was made that the Volkswagen LD31 minibus, which is often used as a vehicle for carrying the disabled, has a dangerously weak fuel return pipe which spills petrol on to the top of the engine. This has lead to a number of fires, some involving loss of life. The Under-Secretary apparently accepts that the allegations are correct, because he said that he expected Volkswagen to take immediate remedial action. I trust that he has not left the matter there. He should order an inquiry by the Department of Transport into the safety of that vehicle. I hope that he is not relying on a homily in a television programme on such a serious matter. I hope that he has the power to compel the refitting of a safe fuel connection on every LD31 minibus. If he does not have sufficient power, I can promise him that the Opposition will facilitate either primary or secondary legislation to provide him with those essential powers.

I would have liked to spend some time on the issues that I hope my hon. Friends will take up, but time does not permit. I also would have preferred not to discuss the British Airways-British Caledonian merger, not because I have any inhibitions about discussing it, but because I believe that it is a proper subject for debate in Government time. Last week we had the unfortunate difficulties when the Government refused to make a statement on that issue. Government spokesmen hinted to me that there was no need for a statement because it could be discussed during the transport debate. I hope that such a debate will not hijack our Opposition day on the transport issues that we regard as important.

I had hoped that the merger issue would quieten down, but over the weekend the plot thinkened. Therefore, I think it is necessary to say a few words about that. BCal experienced its difficulties because the Government's policies on privatisation and competition are incompatible. The Government could not afford to carry out the propositions put to it by the Civil Aviation Authority because they had to keep British Airways fat and juicy, and ripe for privatisation. In doing that, they provided the death knell for British Caledonian.

I am not happy about the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Initially I had thought that the report was fairly clear, but a number of issues have since arisen. I read in the press that the first that British Caledonian knew that British Airways had concluded a deal to surrender British Caledonian's domestic licences and its three European routes, with the right to reapply for them, was two days before the report was published. That does not provide much of a basis for trust or for hon. Members to accept what Lord King says. When he was pressed about British Airways' ordering of the Airbus A320, he said that that depended on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If he is playing ducks and drakes with British industry and with British Caledonian, he must not be surprised if we scrutinise what he says. I have confirmed with British Caledonian that those weekend press reports are true. It confirmed that it is not simply speculation. That is quite disgraceful and intolerable.

I support the view that my hon. Friend is expressing. I hope that there will be a debate on the proposed merger. Does my hon. Friend know that the wings of the Airbus are manufactured in my constituency, that many hundreds of jobs are involved and that my constituents are concerned about the consequence of the merger on the ordering of Airbus?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming my point about the type of merger and the important effect that that might have on jobs.

The merger was announced at 1.30 am — I heard about it at 9 am on the radio—and I believe that the Government had no choice but to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, they had to do that once the announcement was made. The Government should have acted without sending the case to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There have been three and a half months of uncertainty and we do not know how many weeks of uncertainty still remain. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who speaks for the Department of Trade and Industry in this House, confirmed in response to a private notice question on the day of the announcement that the Department of Transport was told that merger negotiations were taking place a week before the conclusion of the exercise.

In the light of the MMC report, my criticism of the Government is well founded. To paraphrase paragraph 8.70 of the report, before reference was made, British Airways offered conditional undertakings to the Office of Fair Trading — first to give up 5,000 slots at Gatwick ; secondly, not to oppose applications to the CAA by any other airline seeking to compete with it; and thirdly, to submit to any examination of routes currently operated by BCal, where further British competition would be desirable.

Those three specific offers were made to the Office of Fair Trading before referral. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is a Member of the other place, knew about the offer. As a result of that offer paragraph 8.71 of the MMC report refers to the giving up of BCal's domestic routes and three of the European routes, the right to reapply and the examination of international routes by the CAA. The Government should have taken that responsibility on themselves and not simply farmed it out to another agency.

Have the Government a view on aviation policy? Do they have a view on airports policy? Clearly they have not. Do they have any influence at all over what is going to happen? Clearly not. The present position is that we understand that Sir Adam Thompson is engaged in discussions with a number of European airlines. One airline, KLM, has withdrawn and is no longer interested. However, we know that opinions are being actively pursued.

I do not know whether Sir Adam Thompson is serious. He might simply he trying to jack up the value of the British Airways offer which apparently is down to £100 million compared with the original £267 million. He may be engaged in a bargaining game. On the other hand, given the fact that he has been so badly treated by British Airways, perhaps he is serious about accepting a foreign competitor or a foreign partner. If that is the case, what is the Government's attitude? What will they do? Will they veto any partnership with a foreign airline if that airline takes a given percentage of 25 per cent., 30 per cent. of 40 per cent. of British Caledonian? What will the Government do about that?

The Government cannot allow Sir Adam Thomson and the board of British Caledonian to negotiate with a foreign partner and then say that they are not very sure whether that is in the national interest. Will they then refer that to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission again, or send it to someone else to deal with it? That is no way to run an airline policy. The truth is that the Government do not have an airline policy. That collapsed because of the Government's interest in privatising British Airways, and they have no influence on or ideas about future airline policy.

I have another point to make about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report. On page 44, paragraph 5.38 of the report rehearses what was offered and the consequences. With regard to the revocation of licences, a little footnote states:

"The procedure used would be to apply to the CAA for revocation of the licences. This would enable BA to continue the services during the consideration by the CAA of application for the routes."

I welcome that to the extent that services must continue until such time as a new licence operator comes in. However, it would appear that some airlines which currently hold licences to which British Caledonian has made objection might have to apply afresh for licences if British Caledonian withdraws these objections. Some operators have told me that there is some doubt, even if they get the go-ahead, that capacity and slots would be made available to them. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer those points and try to clear up the confusion.

In the interests of fairness and debate, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman forgot to remind his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has now left the Chamber, that the jobs in the factory at Hawarden in his constituency would have disappeared altogether were it not for the fact that an incoming Conservative Government reversed the previous Labour Government's decision to cancel the Airbus project. Before the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) jumps to defend the British Caledonian position, he should also remind the House that the Labour party policy on the Edwards report was against the establishment of a second airline in this country. We should have an honest admission on those matters.

I will look into those points.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to refute the idea that the Labour party was against a second airline. In the interests of customers, Labour Ministers supported the idea of the creation of British Caledonian. I was a Minister in the Department at the time and was involved in all the talks. It was obvious that, if we did not have that kind of extension, there would be very large private monopolies.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was going to say more or less what she has said. I will look into the point about the Tory Government re-establishing the Airbus project, which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) claimed had been cancelled by a Labour Government. I do not remember that, but I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. However, I will check it up.

I have no doubt that, if there is a choice between British Caledonian going into partnership with a foreign airline or going with British Airways, I would rather it went with British Airways. At the end of the day, the best result for the people working for the airline and for the customers would be for the merger to proceed, and I will seek to defend the interests of the employees of the two airlines to ensure that they get the best deal and give the best service.

I want to make it quite clear that the Government are in a muddle over a whole range of transport responsibilities. They proclaim their advocacy of the free market, but they know that the market does not work, has not worked and cannot work. The market cannot meet the needs of the individual or the corporate consumer. The Government are in a state of paralysis. They are unable to offer any strategy for transport. They are simply drifting. The sad truth is that the Department of Transport is ignored by the other Departments of State. The Department has failed and will continue to fail the nation. I invite the House to approve the Opposition motion.

I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'congratulates the Government on the success of transport policies which have led to an improved transport infrastructure through increased investment whilst reducing the proportion of gross domestic product taken up by public expenditure, which have provided better value for money for taxpayers, ratepayers and industry, and which have increased choice of service to the customer; and furthermore notes with approval the Government's policies to safeguard the environment and to maintain and improve transport safety standards.'

I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity that the Opposition have given me today to publicise the achievements of the Government over the past eight years. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to stress the improved service to the customer that we have created. We intend to continue with that. However, first I must thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for his kind personal references to me. I note that he said that I will last only 137 days, a little longer than Napoleon, but not much. I shall do my best to hang on for a little longer than that.

The theme that runs through all of our transport policies is to provide the best transport service for the customer at the least cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer. I intend to consider Network SouthEast in some detail later. However, transport by road, rail, sea and air is a vital part of Britain's economic success. We all know that we are in the seventh successive year of steady growth. Industrial production is at its highest ever level and this country's transport system has played a great part in that success.

I shall highlight four sectors of solid achievement in which we propose to go further during this Parliament. These are, a massive investment in transport infrastructure; obtaining value for public money ; the unprecedented increase in competition in transport; and improving safety, which was a point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made.

I am sure that hon. Members will find it extraordinary, when they analyse the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, which lasted about 37 minutes, that he did not once mention roads, except in relation to road safety. Over 80 per cent. of freight by volume in the United Kingdom travels by road. Some 90 per cent. of passengers are carried by car, taxi, bus or coach. Some two-thirds of households in the United Kingdom have regular access to a car, yet in its motion the Labour party does not mention roads.

An effective road system, by cutting transport costs, makes a vital contribution to national economic prosperity. That is not a new discovery ; the only difference is that the Government have delivered a road programme that is almost one-third larger, in real terms, than it was in 1979.

Half of it has been coned off.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of cones. The only reason why there are so many cones on the motorways is that the Labour Government neglected maintenance ; I have had to spend money to catch up. By 1992 I shall have caught up on the years of neglect of motorway and trunk road maintenance, which was initiated largely by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) after the IMF crisis.

rose—

rose—

We have completed no fewer than 216 schemes and they have added 733 miles to the national network. Some 76 bypasses have been opened to take through traffic away from towns and villages. Since April 1987 we have opened 19 new road schemes, nine of which were bypasses.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall finish this point and give way.

In the 1985 review of the road programme 51 schemes were added. Earlier this year a further 82 schemes were added.

Will the Secretary of State tell us on what evidence his statement that since 1979 far more money has been spent per mile of motorway on maintenance is based? Will he tell us to what extent this problem has been caused by heavy lorries? For example, in south Wales, during the miners' strike, on the motorway between Port Talbot and Newport, one could see the ruts that were being caused by these heavy vehicles, which were clearly breaking the law.

I shall deal with that point a little later.

This year we plan to start schemes to add over 150 miles of road to the national network. The forward programme embraces some 360 schemes, with a total value of about £5 billion. Does that sound like neglect of the nation's transport needs?

Within the next few years we shall extend the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham, the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford, build the M66 from Denton to Middleton, open the A1-M1 link and the A69 Newcastle western by-pass, improve the Al in north Yorkshire and upgrade the north circular in London.

I welcome the introduction of these schemes, but will the Minister say when they were first projected?

Each scheme has a different date. I have announced the schemes that my predecessors added earlier this year. The point that I am coming to, about which the hon. Gentleman will be sensitive, is how the Labour party neglected our roads and how we are picking up the pieces.

Will the Minister give way?

I must get on because I must deal with rail, air and sea.

As to local roads, we are providing £180 million in transport supplementary grant to help local authorities. That will assist over 300 schemes, including the £39 million Birmingham middle ring road, the Bradford city ring road, the Manchester-Salford inner relief road, the £17 million Liverpool inner ring road and the £40 million black country route through Wolverhampton and Walsall.

Those schemes, which are at the heart of inner-city areas, will be an essential part of their regeneration.

Will the Minister give way?

rose—

I have a lot to deal with, but when I return to roads I shall give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North dealt at length with British Rail and painted a tale of woe and neglect. However, we should consider the figures. We have approved 20 major investment schemes, including nearly 2,000 new passenger vehicles, 96 new locomotives, and new cross-city links in London and Manchester. We have agreed, in principle, to sizeable investment on the international high-speed Channel services.

Overall, BR plans to invest £3 billion over the next five years. Its planned investment for each of the next five years is higher, in real terms, than its investment expenditure in any single year since the 1960s. Since June 1979 my predecessors and I have not turned down a single railway investment project that BR has submitted. We have approved investment of £3 billion, at today's prices, and we shall continue to support worthwhile investment proposals, including those needed—

The Government have sold off BR.

The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we have not sold off BR.

We shall continue to support worthwhile investment proposals, including those needed for BR to meet quality of service standards for the grant-aided railway.

rose—

Several hon. Members want me to give way, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) as she is an old friend.

We do not dispute the fact that there has been investment, but does not the Secretary of State remember that this is exactly what happened with the Royal Ordnance factories, when initially there was much investment, then a loss of jobs and then the selling of units?

The parallel with the Royal Ordnance factories is a little far fetched. I shall later deal with some points that the hon. Lady may find interesting in relation to her constituency.

My right hon. Friend made a cogent point about investment in British Rail. Will he confirm that British Rail has not reached its limit of external financing and that, therefore, the Government have been most generous, in real terms, to BR?

That must be right, and investment expenditure, in real terms, for the next few years is enormous. If my hon. Friend is patient, he may hear some information that will interest him with regard to York.

We have authorised 1,333 track miles of electrified railway: London to Cambridge, London to Norwich, Tonbridge to Hastings, Bournemouth to Weymouth, and east coast electrification to Leeds, York and Edinburgh, which is the largest single rail investment for 25 years and the biggest ever electrification scheme. It is well ahead of schedule.

The average level of spending on electrification each year since 1979, in real terms, is £72 million. Between 1974–79, in real terms, it was only £41 million. Who has neglected the railways? Labour Members have made a completely bogus case about our level of BR investment.

I am deeply concerned that the Secretary of State has not referred to investment programmes in Scotland or Wales. As to the specific point about the east coast electrification, is he aware of the deep concern of people in the Grampian region that the rail electrification will stop at Edinburgh, thus leaving the oil capital of Europe stranded in that there will be no electrified line running from Edinburgh up the east coast? Is that not ludicrous? Will he therefore persuade BR that investment must continue north of the central belt of Scotland to ensure that we can link into the network system?

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made a similar point when he opened the debate and I understand his concern for constituency interests. Of course, we would not turn down any worthwhile investment scheme that British Rail put to us, nor have we ever done so. Any scheme put forward must be cost-effective. The same answer applies to the high-speed trains. We will consider any worthwhile investment scheme that is put forward.

rose—

I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman back—we missed him for a few moments.

The Crewe-Holyhead—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?