To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many indentured apprentices were registered on 1 January each year for the past 20 years.

The labour force survey showed that there were 352,000 apprentices in Great Britain in spring 1990 compared with 367,000 in spring 1979 when the data were first collected, but it must be recognised that apprenticeships are only part of the system of delivering vocational training. Youth training, for example, currently provides training for 350,000 young people, compared with only 6,000 in 1979. Most of these are in addition to the number of apprentices.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that so many apprentices are still indentured in Britain, contrary to the generally held view that the numbers have declined rapidly. I commend to my hon. Friend the furniture industry for its new and imaginative scheme for trainees in that industry, in which skill has a pre-eminent position. Would not it be even better if we reviewed the way in which education and training are still divided unnaturally by the school leaving age of 16? That would allow even more young people to take advantage of the excellent training available in the furniture industry.

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the furniture industry on what sounds an excellent scheme. I hope to have an opportunity to see something of it at first hand. The whole House is beginning to recognise the success of youth training. It has brought into training hundreds of thousands of young people who would not previously have been trained. That is surely a fact that can be accepted. Youth training is improving the quality of training by shifting the focus from the time served to the acquisition of relevant competences, and it is delivering qualifications. According to the latest figures, 69 per cent. of those who complete youth training acquire qualifications. That is an impressive result.

Would the Under-Secretary of State like to comment on the observation that is made from time to time that our European partners devote much more of their national resources to education and training? Perhaps he would comment on how we stand in the league table.

International comparisons are complex and difficult, but comparisons show that, on the education side, we are one of the high spenders, and that, on the training side, the Government are one of the highest spenders. It is not true that we invest less than other countries in education and training. There may be questions about the effectiveness with which, in the past, we have invested in education and training. We are pursuing that matter actively. When answering my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), I should have added that we are looking into a review such as he suggested. Only last Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced a White Paper on the subject.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if he wants to have a reasonable number of apprentices in the construction industry, he will have to keep the Construction Industry Training Board as a statutory organisation, whether he wants it or not?

As my hon. Friend knows, only the other day we debated an order on the levy for the Construction Industry Training Board. We are continuing to sustain the board. We had a rather equivocal debate with the Opposition, in which I believe my hon. Friend took part.

Will the Minister confirm that the number of apprenticeships in manufacturing industries in Britain has declined by two thirds during the lifetime of the Government? Is not that further evidence of the skills gap between Britain and other countries and further confirmation of the point made last week by the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he admitted that Britain still lags behind our competitors in the participation of school leavers in both education and training? Were not the Secretary of State's words simply a condemnation of the Government's record and an indication of their failure in both education and training?

The proportion of our young people who stay on in full-time education beyond 16 is relatively low, but it has improved substantially since the Labour party was last in office. I simply cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not have a breakdown of apprentices by sector of manufacturing industry. I shall certainly look into that and come back to the hon. Gentleman. Over the past 10 years there has been a phenomenal increase in the productivity of manufacturing industry. That must be taken into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils are now fully operational; and how many more will be so in the next two years.

Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in England and Wales are now in place, with 51 fully operational. I expect a further 20 or so to become operational on 2 April and the remainder later this year, nearly two years ahead of schedule.

The Government have certainly demonstrated their commitment to training, as is evidenced by the fact that the training budget has increased two and a half times in real terms since the time of the last Labour Government. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the employer has the primary responsibility for training, and may we be assured that there will be no dilution in the employer role from the point of view of the leadership of TECs? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to tackle the minority of employers who continue to think that training is expendable in a downturn, which is exactly the opposite of the view that is taken by our competitors?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the crucial role played by employers in training. Employers are currently investing more than £20 billion in training. We recognise the importance of their role in the lead that we have given them in training and enterprise councils. I am not sure that my hon. Friend need be quite so pessimistic about the current intentions of employers. Latest surveys estimate that between four and six times as many employers intend to maintain or increase their investment in training as intend to reduce it.

Will the Secretary of State accept from me, who served his time in a five-year apprenticeship as a fitter and turner, that the present methods of youth training have absolutely nothing in common with what the young people in this country used to receive in the days of proper apprenticeships? Is he aware that the figures that the Under-Secretary of State gave in answer to a supplementary question on Question I had nothing to do with indentured apprentices because the indenturing of apprentices has virtually disappeared from Great Britain?

Youth training is, for the most part, far superior to the kind of training to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Youth training is not simply a question of time serving. It is increasingly a question of gaining qualifications, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when dealing with Question 1—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will tell the House from the Opposition Front Bench whether the kind of reaction that we are seeing from his hon. Friends behind him to youth training represents the official position of the Labour party.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the announcement last week of up to 5,500 job losses in the shipyards at Barrow. That followed the announcement of 2,000 job losses at the end of last year. Will he consider what initiatives his Department can take, particularly by way of extra funding for Cumbria, TEC, with emphasis on training and retraining?

I know that my hon. Friend is working very hard indeed to help his constituents. He has asked for a meeting with me and I look forward to seeing him in the near future and to discussing with him the ways in which we can help.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now admit, as he must, that not only is he presiding over the fastest rising unemployment anywhere in western Europe but that in last week's Budget he secured not a penny piece more for the training and enterprise councils, which face massive cuts in training for the unemployed? What went wrong with his Budget submission? Did he never ask for more money or was it that, when he did, he was told that throwing a lifeline to the Tory party over the poll tax mattered more than giving hope to the unemployed whom the Tories have created?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has a little more to learn about Budgets and their relationship with public expenditure. The Budget announced an important tax relief on training, which I would have hoped, if Opposition Members were serious about training, they would warmly welcome, in addition to the £120 million extra for employment training which I announced the last time I answered questions in the House.

May we be assured that chambers of commerce are being adequately consulted in the work context?

Yes. For the most part, chambers of commerce are working closely with training and enterprise councils. They have an important role to play. Indeed, in many cases the people who are in the lead in running training and enterprise councils come from the chamber of commerce movement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people residing in the employment areas of South Yorkshire are in full-time employment; what proportion of the population this figure represents; and what is the national average.

Information on employment according to the place of residence of the employees can only be obtained, for local areas, from the 1981 census of population. Data according to the place of work are available from the census of employment. In September 1987 there were 325,000 employees in full-time employment in the county of South Yorkshire, who represented 54·4 per cent. of the estimated work force and compared with a figure of 59·7 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole.

Do not those statistics reveal the farce of the Government's calculations that show that South Yorkshire is more well-to-do than even the richest areas of south-east England? Does the Minister accept that our position has gravely deteriorated since the 1981 census? Will he therefore ensure that, for areas such as South Yorkshire, information obtained from the 1991 census will be fed into the Government's calculations with great urgency?

I think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. I regret that the level of full-time employment in his constituency is below the national average. However, there has been not a deterioration but a sharp improvement in employment levels in South Yorkshire and Wentworth in the late 1980s. I ask the hon. Gentleman to study carefully the figures in the 1989 census of employment, which will be published early next month and will show an appreciable improvement in full-time employment over that period.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has had any discussions with BNFL on health and safety in the workplace.

No, but officials from the Health and Safety Executive are in regular communication with BNFL on health and safety matters in discharging their normal regulatory functions.

If the Government are so sure about the health and safety record, why do not they encourage BNFL to go for on-site storage and reprocessing, rather than letting highly toxic nuclear fuels travel through my constituency in the heart of Edinburgh on their way from Torness?

The answer is simple. The Health and Safety Executive has responsibility for safety levels at sites such as BNFL and others, through the nuclear installations inspectorate, and I am satisfied that it discharges its responsibility to the full. The record of safety at nuclear sites fully bears that out. Responsibility for transporting materials of whatever kind from one place to another comes under the Department of Transport and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue his inquiries with that Department.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being made by his Department to stimulate tourism.

In recognition of the present difficulties facing the industry, £800,000 has been made available to the English tourist board for a major marketing campaign starting this month, and the British Tourist Authority will receive an extra £800,000 in 1991–92 to promote Britain overseas. I am visiting north America in the week commencing 7 April to help boost interest there in Britain as a place to visit.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, the last time we had problems with terrorism and people in the United States were deterred from visiting this country, a number of initiatives were taken in the United States, including meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend's counterpart in the United States. Will he meet his counterpart when he visits the United States and assure us that everything will be done to return Brawn to a healthy state of tourism, particularly from that country?

1 can certainly give my hon. Friend those assurances. I shall do all I can to remind Americans that they will be very welcome here. We expect many of them to visit in the months ahead.

While the Government are proud to give £800,000 to tourism how much has been taken out of tourism with the increase in VAT to 17½ per cent., which was announced last week'? Surely that step will encourage many thousands more people to take their holidays in Benidorm instead of Bournemouth and will be a devastating blow to the tourist industry in Britain.

The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect different rules to apply to the tourist industry and to other industries. If he or any other Opposition Member suggests that local government contributions to local government services should be reduced—as we think they should be—but not financed through VAT, perhaps they will say how they would finance them.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of how fast Southampton is advancing in the tourist market? What help is his Department giving us and what facilities will be available for new areas of tourism such as the port of Southampton, the ocean village, marinas and many other facilities in the area?

I am aware of the many attractions of Southampton. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Southern tourist board is doing what it can to draw Southampton's tourist attractions to the attention of potential visitors.

Will the Secretary of State admit to the House that the £800,000 that he announced is not new money, but money that was already destined to go to tourism? As he was invited to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), will the Secretary of State accept that the industry reckons that the £800,000 that he claims to be making available bears scant comparison with the £300 million that the industry will lose due to the VAT change? The industry makes that comparison because it knows that the Government are not prepared to do anything for it.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures for one moment. I note that he repeats the question asked by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) without dealing with the essential point underlying that question, which I put to him and invited him and his colleagues to answer.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the new money that he has made available will be widely welcomed in the industry? Has he heard the news that £1 billion is the current estimate of the loss to airlines alone around the world as a result of the Gulf war and the recession? Therefore, will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to monitor carefully the effect of those events on tourism in Britain, and the benefit to it of the money that he has made available, to ensure that the industry survives for the next few months?

I can certainly give that assurance. I am working closely with the British Tourist Authority so that we do all that we can to encourage the industry and to encourage more people to come to Britain to enjoy all the attractions that we have to offer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current number of factory inspectors in post.

On 1 March 1991, 632·5 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive, an increase of 7 per cent. since 1988. Details of further planned increases in inspectors will be published late in May or June in the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1991–92 and beyond, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has now received for his approval.

Does the Minister agree with the director-general of the Health and Safety Executive who. when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, said that there were far too many serious accidents in industry? Does not that mean that we should employ more factory inspectors? Will the Minister consider the fact that, many years ago, it was possible for factory inspectors to go round seeking out unregistered premises? That service has gone by the board under the Tory Government. As a result, one young man was killed in a plastic baling machine at an unregistered premises and a self-employed worker, taking part in the Conservative's enterprise culture, bought a defective baling machine, into which he fell while it was on unregistered premises, and was killed. Does not the Minister think it time that the Government took more time to prevent such accidents from occurring? That means employing more factory inspectors and devoting more time to seeking out the cowboys in unregistered premises.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. There are always too many accidents. That is common ground—at least I hope it is. I part company with the hon. Gentleman over his simplistic analysis whereby he assumes that the number of inspectors in post—which is increasing and scheduled to increase further—is necessarily connected with the number of accidents. Through a careful plan of work, the Health and Safety Executive ensures that its resources are carefully targeted in sectors where accidents are most likely to take place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implementation of national vocational qualifications.

The Government are fully committed to the far-reaching reform of vocational qualifications being carried out by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications under the leadership of Sir Bryan Nicholson. The council has been set the target of completing the framework of reformed qualifications to cover 80 per cent. of the working population by the end of 1992.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that national vocational qualifications offer working people of all ages the chance to have their existing skills recognised and set clear targets for their future training needs? Does he also agree that such skills can be attained only if we set standards of training that are as good as those of our European competitors?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The standard of training and the qualifications go together. I hope that many people will take advantage of the tax relief in the Budget to exploit the opportunities that are available in order to provide better training to achieve these qualifications.

We must hope that the country makes progress in these important matters. How shall we know whether we are making progress unless there are clear targets and figures to be achieved? What steps is the Department of Employment taking to set national targets and time scales so that we can check whether we are making progress and, if not, so that we can take the essential remedial action?

I have set the National Council for Vocational Qualifications a very clear target of covering 80 per cent. of the work force with the relevant qualifications by the end of next year. In terms of other targets I look forward to the results of the work that the CBI, in association with other bodies, is carrying out. When that work is complete, we shall consider how best to move forward on the basis of targets specifically related to responsibilities, so that those who are set the targets are able to achieve them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory requirements presently relating to employers' recognition of trade unions.

The last Labour Government's compulsory recognition law was objectionable in principle and unworkable in practice. It was repealed in 1980 following representations from the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. As a result, employers are now free to decide for themselves, in the light of their own particular circumstances and the needs of their business, whether to recognise a trade union, or any particular trade union.

I am glad to hear that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent document from the Trades Union Congress which shows that if a single shop steward on a shop floor decides that 40 per cent. of the employees want to have a trade union recognised, on his word it should be recognised? I hope that my hon. Friend can give the absolute assurance that that will be totally resisted because it would result in complete ill will and anarchy on the shop floor.

My hon. Friend illustrates very well the extent to which the TUC simply wants to turn back the clock and the extent to which the Labour party is in the clutches of the trade union movement. I think that I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there will be no turning back on this issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers are involved with school-industry compacts.

More than 8,000 employers are actively involved in school-industry compacts, guaranteeing about 25,000 jobs with training for school leavers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme covers 78,000 young people? Does he also agree that it is important for industry to continue to play its role by encouraging children to have some influence on their own education and to play a wider role in the community and in industry? Will my hon. Friend give further encouragement to the scheme, which effectively means that by meeting pre-agreed targets young people are guaranteed a job at the end of tuition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The growth of the compact movement is one of the great hopes for the future and has been one of the great successes of the late 1980s. It started in 1988 and 85,000 young people—not 78,000—are covered by compact arrangements. The first cohort of l6-year-olds will enter further education or jobs in the summer. There is tremendous enthusiasm among employers and I have seen at first hand the enthusiasm of young people who are benefiting from the compact guarantee. It is an excellent development.

While we all welcome the fostering of legal and beneficial contacts between children, employers and industry, does the Minister agree that illegal contracts between children and employers are serious? To estimate how seriously the Minister regards this, will he tell us how many under-age children are illegally employed in this country?

I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I shall look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman. This is an important issue, although it does not arise directly out of the question about compacts. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to listen quietly to questions and not to carry on private conversations, especially below the Gangway.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost to strikes during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

One and a half million working days were lost as a result of strikes in the 12 months ended January 1991. This is less than an eighth of the annual average in the 1970s, and is the lowest 12-month total since 1953. The number of stoppages recorded in January is the lowest for this month since 1929.

Is not this enormously welcome decrease in the number of strikes largely due to the powers of the courts to sequester the assets of trade unions that break the law? Would not abandoning these powers lead to a massive increase in the number of strikes? Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn the Labour party's proposals to give these powers back to unions and to undermine the courts?

1 agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that someone will rise from the Labour Front Bench and congratulate the Government on the success of our measures to reduce the number of strikes—something which has benefited our country. My hon. Friend is also right to point to the disastrous consequences that would flow from the Labour party's strikers' charter.

Instead of being unbelievably smug about what the Government have done, the Secretary of State should be more concerned about factories that are closing completely, because that is causing far more distress in industry and among workers. When Question Time is over, will the Secretary of State find time to go downstairs and talk to the representatives of the 2,000 British Aerospace workers from Kingston—members of the work force in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who are about to lose their jobs?

I cannot believe that even the hon. Gentleman thinks that an increase in the number of strikes will help to save jobs. He might be better employed having a word with his Front-Bench defence spokesman, whose £9 billion worth of defence cuts would make the difficulties now faced by the defence industry seem as nothing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on job losses in the textile industry.

The number of employees in the textile industry fell by 14,000 or 7 per cent. in the year to January 1991.

Do not those figures show the Minister that the industry is in deep crisis? Is he aware that the textile industry loses one job every 60 minutes because of the Government's policies? When will the Minister get off his backside and instead of watching over the destruction of the industry do something to protect it and provide jobs?

Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's supposition, Governments do not provide jobs—the market does. The hon. Gentleman's picture of the performance of the textile industry, for which he claims to speak, is grotesquely wrong. He talks about a grave crisis, but in the year 1989–90 United Kingdom exports of clothing and textiles rose by 14 per cent., from £3·9 billion to £4·4 billion. That does not look to me like an industry in deep crisis.

Will my hon. Friend accept that in north-west Leicestershire we have a textile industry and despite losing 6,000 jobs when the mines closed we now have 1,200 more jobs than we did before closure? Furthermore, our textile industry is not complaining about job losses because parts of it are extremely buoyant.

It is an important industry, more than 400,000 people work in it, and it makes a great contribution to the national and international economy. My hon. Friend's emphasis, rather than that of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is correct.

If the Minister thinks that the textile industry is so important, will he speak to the Office of Fair Trading about the hostile bid being made for Tootal? Does he share my concern that, if that hostile bid goes through, upwards of 200 people in my constituency, working at Slimma in Tunstall could be made redundant because there are no employment guarantees?

That is obviously a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has his attention drawn to the hon. Lady's question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the effect of TECs on voluntary training organisations.

It is up to every training and enterprise council to decide which providers to contract with. I am satisfied that TECs will give voluntary organisations every opportunity to bid for the training that is required in their local areas.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when training and enterprise councils are considering the suitability of training organisations, the most important criterion is that that organisation should be able to provide quality training? If there are unsuccessful training organisations, can we please ensure that trainees currently undergoing training in them are transferred to others and that we always keep uppermost in our mind the training needs of those with special difficulties?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Quality training is the supreme objective of training and enterprise councils. It is very important to ensure that if a provider's contract is not renewed the trainees continue to be catered for. That is something that the training and enterprise councils are achieving.

Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), will the Secretary of State have a look at the prospects for Apex, the ex-offenders' organisation which has been carrying out a unique training programme countrywide but is threatened, certainly in the south-east of England and in south-east London, with the imminent withdrawal of its funding? Will the Minister consider whether such organisations ought to be given special status when the general budget allocation is being made or whether, if necessary, additional funding to minimise the effects of the 37 per cent. reduction in funding that is about to decimate organisations such as Apex, Microtech and the rest?

There is no question of withdrawing funding from an organisation in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Each training and enterprise council is reviewing the training needs in its area and deciding how training can best and most effectively be provided. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that objective.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council, which is located in my constituency, has been a very great success? Will he join me in congratulating Colin Shepherd and his team of industrialists on the tremendous amount of voluntary work that they have done to help make the training and enterprise council a success in North Yorkshire? Does he agree that local industrialists, working with the training and enterprise councils, can best decide what are the training needs of a particular area? When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to review the needs of the training and enterprise councils?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to pay tribute to Colin Shepherd and to the rest of the board of the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council. By working closely with the local education authority, they have achieved particular success in promoting education-business partnerships in North Yorkshire. I entirely welcome that initiative.

Will the Secretary of State accept that his response to a serious issue has been shocking and complacent? Will not he accept that 80,000 places have been cut from employment training, that £300 million has been cut from the budget and that we have the fastest rising rate of unemployment in Europe? Why does he not take the issue seriously? Is he unwilling or unable to reverse the scandalous breakdown of special needs provision in Britain?

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have made it clear time after time, we believe in looking at the individual needs of unemployed people, helping them back into work as quickly as possible and making sure that the widest range of help is available to them. That is why we are providing up to 100,000 extra opportunities next year by means of job clubs and the job interview guarantee scheme so that all unemployed people have the maximum help available to them to get back into work as quickly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many school pupils and students are currently benefiting from the technical and vocational education initiative.

In the 1990–91 academic year, some 848,000 young people aged 14 to 18 in full-time education in Great Britain are benefiting from TVEI.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are allocating £900 million over 10 years for the TVEI scheme and that that is over and above the general education budget? Will he also agree that technical training is very important to this country for its future in the world?

I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's statement. The Government have committed £900 million of new money over 10 years, and TVEI now extends to 80 per cent. of our schools and colleges. Furthermore, there have already been great achievements. For example, science qualifications at GCSE have risen from 41 per cent. in 1987 to 53 per cent. in 1988, and the number of pupils studying science and technology has doubled. We have carried out a survey that shows that 84 per cent. of TVEI students say that they benefit from TVEI, although when the scheme was launched the Leader of the Opposition described it as being fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to reduce the hours of work of people in manufacturing industry to the average levels of the European Community.

There are no plans to introduce legislation to reduce working hours.

Will the Minister confirm that workers in manufacturing industry in Britain work an average of 44 hours a week—the longest working hours of any of the 12 countries in the Common Market? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate those trade unions that are leading campaigns towards a shorter working week, and will he tell us when the Government will finally adopt a policy of manufacturing investment that will give people in industry the tools to do their jobs?

The answer is no on all counts. First, the hon. Gentleman is typically wrong in his facts. The information I have is that the hours worked in manufacturing here in the United Kingdom are very much in line with those of our major competitors in the European Community. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that trade unions contribute to productivity, competitiveness and employment in Britain by seeking to force down working hours arbitrarily, he lives in a different world from most real people. The hon. Gentleman's question well illustrates the extent to which the Opposition are totally out of touch with the needs of the United Kingdom in the 1990s.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist for the recovery of moneys allocated under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 by the English tourist board where projects receiving such moneys are closed shortly after final payments are made.

The English—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to listen to Employment Questions.

The English tourist board may require the recipient of a grant made under section 4 to repay some or all of it if any of the conditions have been breached. The conditions apply for 10 years from the date of the final payment of the grant. In particular, a repayment may be sought if the recipient ceases business, for whatever reason.

The Minister will be aware of the tremendous efforts that were made three years ago to secure for the Furness maritime museum a grant of £294,000—the largest grant for a single project. The Minister will also be aware of the circumstances that have prompted my question to him. Will he therefore communicate to Barrow district council the answer that he has given me this afternoon?

I pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played in the very important project that he mentioned. I wish that project well, but I must repeat to my hon. Friend and to all involved in the project that it is the duty of the English tourist board to seek to recover any public moneys that may have been spent on such a project. No one involved in such a project, be it the local authority or anyone else, should imagine that if the project ceases they can walk away with the public money involved. Our duty is to the taxpayer and we want to make sure that the moneys are recovered where appropriate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the closure of the Amble office of the Employment Service.

Six representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend, to me and to the Employment Service chief executive about the closure of Amble. These include two representations made by the hon. Member on the subject. The remaining representations were made by the two local councils concerned. All representations were taken into account in deciding the future of the Employment Service office in Amble.

Does the Minister realise that Amble has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in Northumberland and that jobless people there deserve help on the spot, not miles away in Alnwick? Will he make it clear to the executive agency—the Employment Service—that levels of unemployment and levels of need ought to be a factor in the siting of offices?

Obviously it is an important factor. In saying that, I speak as a Member who has had two closures in his constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has visited the new integrated office at Alnwick. If he has, he will have seen what a superior service is being provided only nine miles from Amble where, at the last count, there were 377 unemployed people and the office was very small. We believe that we can provide a better service at Alnwick.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the success so far of the training and enterprise council initiative.

I am delighted with the progress that has been made by training and enterprise councils. The North Yorkshire training and enterprise council, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, is in the forefront of the TEC movement, and I know that the board welcomes my hon. Friend's close interest in its activities.

Further to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, may I ask whether he recalls that it was the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) who said that in setting up training and enterprise councils the Government were proceeding far too fast? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are now 60 times more training places for young people than there were under the Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members have grown used to seeing the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) shuffle uneasily in his seat whenever the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) are quoted at him.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision substantially to lower community charge levels is very welcome indeed? Does he not find it somewhat strange that the very people who, in the past, complained of lack of consultation about local government are now whining that the Government are being indecisive in doing just that, especially as the chief whiners are members of a party who for the past 12 years have shillied and shallied, dillied and dallied, without coming up with a single workable policy of their own?

My hon. Friend puts his point very crisply. It is fair to say that the Labour party has spent 12 years reviewing its policies and fudging its principles. On local government, we have come further in three months than the Labour party has in all that time.

Does the Prime Minister recall that his predecessor used to describe the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) as "unassailable"? What word would the Prime Minister use to describe the right hon. Gentleman today?

It may be the fate of Prime Ministers to be assailed by the unassailable, but my right hon. Friend is quite wrong to suggest that we ought not to have consultation on such an important matter. It is important to get the right decisions and to ensure that people are carried with those decisions. This is a critically important matter, and the consultation is necessary. We shall carry it out speedily, and then decide.

Is not "perceptive" the best word to describe the contribution of the right hon. Member for Blaby to the consultation? Does the Prime Minister agree that the right hon. Gentleman was perceptive in his warning that the Government are trying to inflict "son of poll tax", and even more perceptive in his view that the Prime Minister cannot choose and therefore should not govern?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken again. With regard to decision-taking, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will himself confirm that in the past few weeks a number of decisions have been taken that he would have wished to take in recent years but neglected to take.

Is my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Order. It is difficult to hear.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is absolutely right to carry out further consultation before deciding on the replacement for the community charge? Personally, I have always believed that the best solution is to switch all the cost of local government expenditure to the central Exchequer, and I set out the reasons in my speech yesterday. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) at last agrees, but, in doing so, is it not wholly inconsistent of him then to object to the measure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken to transfer the burden from the community charge to VAT? That is a move in the right direction.

I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. We are setting out our alternative proposals in the consultation document. My right hon. Friend mentions inconsistency. He may care to bear in mind that the Labour party has set new standards of inconsistency day after day by one moment complaining that the level of local taxation is too high and the next moment whining about the level of value added tax.

Will the Prime Minister now answer the question posed by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) yesterday? In his replacement for the poll tax, which is to be the larger element, the personal charge or the property tax, or has he not been able to choose?

It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman of all people in the House should believe in decision before consultation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bold and courageous decision to abolish the community charge and, in particular, to replace it with extra VAT. As 2½ per cent. extra VAT will solve half the problem, why will not 5 per cent. solve the whole problem?

My hon. Friend has consistently advocated that course, and it is accurate so far as the statistical method of collecting the money is concerned, but there are important principles at stake about people contributing directly towards the cost of local government services.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

When the Prime Minister visits his constituency he is no doubt in a position to tell his constituents that next year their poll tax will be lower, albeit because the Government have increased taxation by £4·25 billion to pay for that reduction. Knowing how decisive the Prime Minister likes to be, will he be able to advise his constituents on the level of the poll tax in Huntingdon in 1992–93?

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know very much about Huntingdon's expenditure pattern next year, and neither at this moment do I. Therefore, the answer cannot be given. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we have taken £140 off the community charge headline level. Do he and his party agree with that or oppose it?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication on Friday of the security service commissioners' report for 1989–90. Does he accept that 55 of the complaints considered by the commissioners were vexatious and frivolous and, if so, will he consider extending the scope of the security commissioners' powers to cover periods before the introduction of the Security Service Act 1989?

I have no immediate plans to consider that, but I will examine the matter in the light of my hon. Friend's comments.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

Has the Prime Minister any idea whether the poorest and most vulnerable members of society will still have to pay 20 per cent. of the total under the new system, and whether there will be a register for the poll tax element? If he does not know the answer, who does? Should we refer to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Secretary of State for the Environment, to the Secretary of State for Scotland or, indeed, to the Secretary of State for Wales? To which of those competing voices in the Prime Minister's Cabinet should we listen?

What the hon. Gentleman must listen to is what is said in the document that we shall be publishing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Interruption.]

Order. There seems to be something of a holiday atmosphere in the Chamber today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the calculations made by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which suggest not only that the community charge will be lower in the forthcoming financial year but that the new tax that he proposes—on the basis of the amount that will have to be collected—will also be lower? As my right hon. Friend no doubt knows, those projections are available. Perhaps he can persuade the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to tell the House what the average family living in a semi-detached house would pay under Labour's system.

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), however, has not the slightest idea how his system would work, and not the slightest idea of what the tax levels would be.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to his consultation document. As it is due to be published in about two weeks' time, he must have some idea what is in it. Can he tell us how much the Government will contribute to council spending next year, and will he confirm that the poll tax element of the new tax may be higher in Scotland than in England?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in one respect—I have a very clear idea what will go into the document, but he will have to wait until it is published.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

When my right hon. Friend meets President Iliescu of Romania next month, will he refer to the desperate plight of the Romanian orphans and ask the president to give the maximum assistance to British couples who are cleared to adopt such children, notwithstanding the lack of support from the Opposition spokesman on children?

I shall certainly be happy to do that. We are committed to helping British couples who wish to adopt Romanian children, and we are keen to ensure that the appropriate procedures are adopted as speedily as possible. A team of Home Office and Department of Health officials visited Bucharest in November 1990 to discuss further how to co-ordinate help to that end, and we are in regular contact with the Romanian authorities.

Will the Prime Minister today take the opportunity to consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and convey to him the great distress caused by his decision not to open an inquiry into the sinking of MV Derbyshire? The bereaved families have been treated with scant regard by the Secretary of State, who sent me a six-line letter about the matter. He knows about the campaign that has been mounted on behalf of those families. I appeal to the Prime Minister to ensure that his right hon. and learned Friend reconsiders his decision.

As the hon. Gentleman knows from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said the other day, the chief inspector's published report does not warrant a reopening of the court of formal investigation. The position is perfectly clear, and the hon. Gentleman is aware of it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the proposals of some people for public expenditure to be increased by £26 billion? Does he agree that such a course could result only in higher taxes, higher prices and higher inflation? Does he also agree that the British people want to build on the successes of the 1980s, rather than returning to the dismal days of the 1970s?

My hon. Friend has made a good point. The Opposition do not themselves know the cost of their own policies. Their shadow Budget does not add up. Even when they propose to increase child benefit, they forget to include the poor by clawing it back. Their shadow Budget has barely an accurate figure in it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

Can the Prime Minister explain why, under the proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, children in state schools will not be able to study history after 1970 whereas—[Interruption.] I know that the Government have been dithering about it.

Consulting.

Order.

In private schools, to which the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet send their children in this so-called classless society, pupils will be able to study history up to the present day.

If the hon. Gentleman had read the documentation more carefully, he would know that he is wrong. There is no ban on history after the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman is confusing what may be studied with the official curriculum.