To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of school-industry compacts.

There are 51 compacts in operation in inner-city areas across the country and a further 10 compacts in development. The network of inner-city compacts is therefore almost complete. We have made tremendous progress in the three years since the initiative was launched. As I have seen for myself, those compacts are harnessing the enthusiasm and commitment of young people and employers to help ensure we have the qualified and flexible work force that we need for the 1990s.

I welcome the undoubted success of the schools-industry compacts programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the links between industry and wider education are equally important? Does he welcome the news this morning that the Ford company's employee promotion programme has no fewer than 20,000—almost half its work force—signed up? Is that not evidence of the sort of improvements in industry and education that can result in a great increase in skills?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the links between education and business in the wider sense. That is one reason why we have put an additional £3·5 million into that initiative this year. My hon. Friend referred specifically to the case of Ford, and I have talked to that company about its scheme, which is impressive. Similar arrangements have been initiated in a number of different companies, which is most welcome. One of the most interesting features is that Ford undoubtedly underestimated the extent of the demand for that facility. That shows that there is a latent demand in the work force for education and training, and we hope to build on that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve training standards in the hotel and catering industry.

The employers in the hotel and catering industry are necessarily in the lead in ensuring that the industry's standards of training are adequate to meet their business needs. From February of this year, the industry has had an independent, employer-led industry training organisation—the Hotel and Catering Training Company. I am confident that the work of that body will raise the standards of training in the industry.

Many hotels that purport to offer three, four or five-star service are failing to employ adequately trained staff to fulfil certain basic functions, such as porters to carry bags, waiters to carry food and banqueting staff with an understanding of banqueting. Will my hon. Friend ensure that national vocational qualifications in the United Kingdom produce staff of comparable or better quality than those being produced in the catering industries of Germany and France?

I hope that my hon. Friend has not had an unfortunate experience. It sounds as though there might be some personal background to his remarks. The Government's responsibility does not extend as far as my hon. Friend wants. We are responsible for the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which has developed a vocational standard called Caterbase. It is a good standard, which has been developed and widely taken up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the National Trust to discuss tourism.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the newly appointed chairman of the National Trust to discuss tourism. He has, however, met the trust's director general in the context of the tourism and environment initiative mounted by my Department and the English tourist board.

Is the Minister aware that this year the National Trust, with its parks, gardens and houses, has given the tourist industry one of the biggest boosts that it has ever had? As the National Trust's conservation and maintenance costs have risen and its agricultural revenue and Government grant have fallen by £1 million, is there any help that the Government can give?

I would join the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure would every hon. Member, in his admiration and praise for the work that the National Trust does, has done in the past and will continue to do. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment are funding the National Trust to the tune of some £800,000 in the current year. As with many other good causes, one could always make a case for more funding, but the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real point, which is that the National Trust is perhaps uniquely placed to raise a lot of revenue from those who support it and its activities. That it is doing and will continue to do, and I believe that that is the direction for the future.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the National Trust on its important contribution to the recently published report on tourism and the environment? What steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that the many excellent recommendations in that report are put into practice in future?

Indeed, the National Trust played a key part in that exercise, of which my Department was rather proud, because we felt that we identified early on the creative tension which exists between environmental matters and the demands of tourism. In that report which was published on 1 May, we identified recommendations such as wider dissemination and application of visitor management techniques and a partnership approach well exemplifed by the role of the National Trust. As my hon. Friend would expect, we shall be carrying that forward in order to ensure that the jobs and benefits of tourism do not run counter to the requirements of the environment.

Have the 70 paintings and the 22 pieces of silver that finished up at No. 10 Downing street when the previous Prime Minister was in office, many of which were taken from National Trust homes, now been restored to their rightful places? If not, it is high time they were.

For a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was harking back to the days of the Greater London council when he spoke about the missing silver, but in fact the hon. Gentleman was reminding the House of the respect and regard my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has for the national heritage and the fact that, as one would have expected, she was keen to ensure that our national heritage was well represented at No. 10 Downing street. Anyone who believed otherwise could only be in the same carping mode as I am afraid we find the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in the last 12 months on picketing.

Some half a dozen such representations on picketing have been received. I believe that one reason why that number is so small is the success of our legislation in bringing to an end the violent and intimidatory picketing which disfigured industrial relations in the 1970s. None of the representations has sought the legalisation of secondary picketing.

As my hon. Friend has had no representations about bringing back secondary picketing, one of the curses of the 1970s which ended in the winter of discontent, does he agree that it is appalling and horrifying that the Opposition want to re-legalise it?

My hon. Friend makes an important point which I am sure the House and people beyond it will want to note, and that is that, given the staggering success of the industrial relations legislation that the Government have introduced in a careful and planned way, particularly the elimination of the evils of secondary picketing and its violence, the mere suggestion that Opposition Members might want secondary picketing to be brought back is so outrageous that I am sure that the electorate will take due note of that at the appropriate time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the social charter.

The social charter signed by the 11 other member states was only declaratory and has no legal effect. The European Commission has to date published 21 legislative and other proposals under its social action programme. Of those, five have been agreed so far. The United Kingdom continues to play a full and active part in the discussions. For example, at yesterday's informal meeting of European Community Employment Ministers, I put forward a five-point initiative designed to increase effective employee involvement, including a European Community recommendation on best practice. There was useful discussion of that issue, and it was agreed that consideration of my proposal should continue in the months ahead.

It is obvious that the Secretary of State is speaking and acting far more moderately, in this post-Finchley age, in respect of the social charter. Does he accept the importance of the social dimension as a factor in the Single European Act? Will he persuade the Council of Ministers and the Commission to become actively involved in renegotiating the Council of Europe's social charter, and the Commission to accede to the Council of Europe's charter—to which our country is a major signatory?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to allay his anxieties. There has been no change whatsoever in the attitude adopted by the United Kingdom Government in the Social Affairs Council of Ministers during the whole of the period in which I have had the honour to represent this country at that Council. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of the social dimension of the Single European Act programme. Its most important aspect, bearing in mind the fact that 15·5 million people are without jobs in the Community, is the creation of employment. My main task at the Council of Ministers is to do all I can to ensure that the Community does nothing to place extra burdens on British employers, which would destroy jobs in this country and in other Community states.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend be wary of any proposals from the Social Affairs Council of Ministers, which seems to be caught in a 1960s time warp in believing that its policies would help to create jobs, when the reverse is true—they would help to destroy them? Will my right hon. and learned Friend be particularly careful about any further bureaucractic proposals from the Commission affecting temporary or part-time workers? If they are tied up in more red tape, there will be fewer and fewer jobs for them.

I entirely agree, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the proposed directive relating to part-time work was not even discussed at yesterday's informal meeting of the Council. I shall continue to keep uppermost in my representations to the Council the need to encourage and enhance employment, reduce regulation, and avoid damaging measures that would increase the number of unemployed in the Community.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that among the Government's reasons for opposing the social charter is that it would necessitate freedom of association—in other words, because people would be allowed to join the trade union of their choice? That would force the Government to reconsider their decision not only to destroy jobs at GCHQ but to undermine the civil liberties of those who worked there and who were sacked for the crime of joining a trade union. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further confirm that the Government have already acknowledged that right by international treaty, through their support of International Labour Organisation conventions and of the United Nations declaration on human rights? How does the Secretary of State intend to respond to the latest criticism made by ILO experts that Britain is again in the wrong in its attitude to the social charter? Will he now allow the people employed at GCHQ to become members of a free trade union?

I am absolutely astonished that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party should have the gall to come to the House and talk about restrictions on people joining the trade unions of their choice. What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude, and that of the Labour party, to the Bridlington agreement? How dare the hon. Gentleman come to the House and pretend, with his party, to be the protector of people wishing to join the trade union of their choice?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women in the labour force are aged 55 years and over.

It is estimated from the preliminary results of the 1990 labour force survey that, in the spring of that year, there were 2,168,000 men and 1,289,000 women in the labour force aged 55 and over.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that a considerable number of companies still practise age discrimination and consequently turn their backs on a not inconsiderable pool of talented labour who happen to be over 55 years of age? Does he also agree that employment should principally be on the basis of merit and nothing else? If so, what is he doing to encourage companies to change their minds and to clean up their employment practices?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Companies should eschew such unnecessary discrimination. The Government seize every opportunity to argue that, and I have made several speeches on the issue. My hon. Friend might have been thinking about a Bill that has been drafted which suggests that there should be legislation on the issue, but we do not believe that legislation would help, for the practical reason that there are circumstances—a limited number, admittedly—in which the age of a person may be relevant to the job. It would be impossible to write all those exceptions into a statute, which is why we do not believe that legislation would be the right approach. Persuasion, not compulsion, is the right approach and we shall continue to do all that we can to persuade.

But does the Minister agree that the period from 1980–91 has shown that, for people of 50 years of age and over who have been made redundant or otherwise put out of work, it is increasingly difficult to find re-employment? Does he also agree that that is a disgraceful waste of talent, experience and other knowledge? Will he take positive steps for once to stop the bleeding of and drain on our national resources caused by the under-employment of the over 50s?

I said that we agreed that there is a drain. The hon. Gentleman has to set the circumstances against the background: about 3 million more people are employed in Britain now than was the case a decade ago, but it is true that there has been a slight decline in the proportion of the labour force aged over 55. Whether the cause is as the hon. Gentleman said or whether it is because of the increased personal income and wealth which enables more people to retire earlier is a question to which we do not have the answer. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be concerned, but we can agree that there would be practical difficulties in the way of legislation.

Let me assure my hon. Friend that a substantial number of people aged 55 and over are finding it unreasonably difficult even to get an interview for a job. Given the manifest fact that many people in that age group have experience, loyalty and skills which are superior to those of much younger people, will he do his level best to ensure that he keeps those of his colleagues who are also in that age group in their jobs by making it clear to employers that they should take a favourable view of people of that age?

The Government employ many such people in the civil service, but we do not employ such practices. The issue must be dealt with in the relationship between the employer and the employee. The Government can urge, explain and argue, and can draw the attention of employers to the facts to which my hon. Friend refers, but it must be a matter between the employer and the employee. We do not believe that legislation would help.

Is the Minister aware that a large proportion of men and women over 50 in the labour force are unemployed? Why then, last year, did about 500,000 people join the dole queue? Why has his Department administered the most savage cuts in training since the war? Why is he not now going to the Treasury to demand more money for the unemployed? Is it because the Government do not care about unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the level of unemployment is essentially decided as a consequence of the wage settlements reached in negotiations between employers and employees. The Government have repeatedly pointed out that the trend of wage settlements has been too high overall to be afforded in the light of the increase in productivity. It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman were to join us in arguing that case rather than attempting to pin the blame where it cannot be pinned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to improve manufacturing employment in the Bolton/Bury travel-towork area.

The employment service and the Bolton and Bury training and enterprise council operate a wide range of services and programmes to help improve the employment prospects for unemployed people in the area. It is employers who create jobs, whether it is in the manufacturing sector or other sectors of the economy.

The Secretary of State will not be surprised to know that I think that that was, as usual, a bogus answer. Does he not realise that since 1979, 1,000 manufacturing jobs a year have been lost in the Bolton-Bury travel-to-work area, which includes my constituency? Does he not realise that the jobs that have been created, which are part time and low paid, such as stacking shelves in supermarkets, are no way to treat the cradle of the industrial revolution?

Why is the hon. Gentleman so determined to paint his area in the darkest possible light? Why does he not talk instead about the reduction in unemployment of 41 per cent. since July 1986? Why does he not talk about the almost 2,500 young people who are receiving training in the Bolton and Bury area, almost 80 per cent. of them qualifying or receiving further training after they have completed their youth training? Why does he not talk about the 500 people in his area who currently benefit from the enterprise allowance? Why does he not talk about the £4 million that is spent through the urban programme in his area, or about the £19 million that has been spent through regional selective assistance since 1979? Why does he not tell the world the good news about his area, instead of darkening its image in such a damaging way?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice the Health and Safety Executive has given about fire-fighting training in relation to oil wells.

Before 1 April 1991, the executive was responsible only for health and safety at onshore oil and gas drilling operations. Since that date, the executive has also taken on regulatory responsibility for health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Does the Minister undertake to write me a detailed letter about the advice that the Health and Safety Executive is giving to the British Army medical team working out of Ahmadi hospital in Kuwait and to the 700 Royal Engineers who are working in appalling conditions of hydrogen sulphide and of photochemical smog where, without being alarmist, there is a real danger of carcinogenic results?

I fully understand the nature of the hon. Gentleman's question. From the Dispatch Box, I should normally be only too delighted to undertake to write him the detailed letter than he invites. In this circumstance, I should, before I gave that undertaking, have to establish that it is for the Health and Safety Executive to be involved in the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I undertake to look at that most carefully and to establish whether it is the responsibility of the Executive and of my Department, or whether the responsibility that the hon. Gentleman has raised lies elsewhere, in which case I should advise him of that matter.

Why does the Health and Safety Executive have to advise oil platform operators of its intent to visit? Why should not it be allowed merely to conduct a random spot check, unannounced, as it would do on land? Surely that would be better for the offshore industry.

My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. This is a matter such as we shall examine when the Health and Safety Executive develops its new responsibilities for the offshore oil industry. I will take up the very point that my hon. Friend has made as we develop the new regulations and as we identify the best way in which we can guarante the same level of health and safety offshore as we have come to expect onshore.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of redundancies in the last year were in manufacturing industry.

During the 12 months to January 1991, 65 per cent. of all confirmed redundancies were in manufacturing industries.

Does not this signal a very dire state for the British economy and for the future of British industry? In the early 1980s, we were told that manufacturing industry was being sorted out so that it would be ready to compete with the rest of Europe. Now the Minister tells us of major cuts in employment. It is also true that there has been a £7 billion downturn in manufacturing output since last March. What are the Government going to do to support employment of the highest calibre in manufacturing industry and to give this country a chance?

The hon. Lady overlooks a significant difference. It is that while manufacturing employment fell during the lifetime of the Labour Government, as it has during the lifetime of the present Government, manufacturing output fell during the Labour Government while it has risen during this Government. That is the best possible tribute to the effectiveness of the Government's policies.

In contrast to what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that during this recession, unlike previous periods of economic downturn, the proportion of redundancies in white-collar jobs has risen considerably? Has my right hon. and learned Friend any thoughts on when he would expect an upturn in the service industries? What message would he wish me to give my constituents, who are suffering quite considerably?

I refer my hon. Friend to the survey that has been published by the Institute of Directors. The results show a remarkable turnround in the confidence of its members and provides extremely encouraging evidence that the turnround will come soon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my view that the most damaging thing that could happen to employment prospects would be the imposition of a national minimum wage, which would destroy up to 2 million jobs. If the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rises on this question, I hope that he will explain to the House how he would avoid the consequence that as the minimum wage is increased as a proportion of the average wage, the average wage in turn increases and we embark on a never-ending cycle of job destruction.

With unemployment increasing faster than in any other country in the western world, and when the summer will inevitably see a further round of closures, cuts and redundancies, when will the Secretary of State fight for his Department's budget? The money that is spent on training the unemployed is, in real terms, half what was spent when unemployment was last at 2 million. Or is it simply the case that the unemployed have become the forgotten people of this Government?

What a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to answer the question that I put to him. Perhaps he thought that it was a sort of warm-up question that he was not obliged to answer. The hon. Gentleman put a statistic in his question—he has used it repeatedly in recent days—on my Department's budget. It is entirely untrue and entirely unfounded. I challenge him to produce the figures on which the assertion is based. We are producing a range of measures to help the unemployed back into work which is wider than that which has ever existed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the chairman of the Northumbria tourist board to discuss the further development of tourism in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement.

My noble Friend Viscount Ullswater, who has ministerial responsibility for tourism matters within my Department, will meet officers and members of the Northumbria tourist board on 14 May. I welcorne the board's new five-year strategy and the increased participation in its work by the private sector, which should assist the development of tourism in the region.

I am pleased to hear about the meeting on 14 May. As Northumberland is the most beautiful of counties, can my hon. Friend give more details of the measures that he is taking to make the promotion of tourism in Northumberland more effective both within the United Kingdom and overseas?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to praise the area which he represents. It is something that Conservative Members do whenever the opportunity arises and which Opposition Members signally fail to do. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the many measures that are being taken, including the recent changes to the tourist board's constitution and the setting up of a commercial members group, both of which are positive and welcome steps. Many other measures are being taken. The key to them—this illustrates the forward-looking and positive nature of the board—is the way in which it is working with the English tourist board, with local commercial interests and with local authorities to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach in praising the very aspects of the region to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. That is the way forward. I wish that many other tourist boards would follow the example of the Northumbria tourist board.

Does the Minister accept that tourism is important to the economy of rural Northumberland? Does he recognise that the removal of section 4 grants has weakened the ability of the industry to invest and that the 10·9 per cent. increase in the uniform business rate is hitting many small businesses in the tourist trade quite hard?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The opening of the £20 million Copthorne hotel and the £7 million Novotel in Newcastle in 1990—to take just two examples from the hon. Gentleman's region—illustrate the general point that the inducements that were available under section 4 were not necessary to allow investment to be sustained. It is possible and likely that up and down the country we shall see a continued level of investment without the inducements that section 4 offered.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on youth training for young people with special needs.

All young people under 18 who are not in full-time education or employment are guaranteed the offer of a suitable training place. This includes those who have special training needs. Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their plans how they intend to meet this guarantee. My Department monitors delivery of these plans and has produced guidance to help TECs with training for people with special needs.

If that is the case, why are centres, schemes and places which provide such training being closed throughout Britain? Schemes being closed include the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders scheme which served my constituency and, indeed, the Minister's constituency. Is not it utterly repugnant that youngsters with special needs should pay the price of government cuts in training? Is not it time that the Minister not only mouthed the guarantee but acted on it so that all youngsters had real entitlement to quality training appropriate to their needs?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing the network of providers with the position of individual people. The hon. Gentleman and his party are in no position to lecture us about training young people. When the Labour party was last in office, it provided a training programme on which there were only 6,000 places. The Government now provide, through youth training, some 350,000 places for young people.

Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of the Elfrida Rathbone Society in dealing with special needs? Does he agree that, as at least some of the people involved are receiving training in life skills rather than training directed at the labour market, it would be more appropriate if such training were dealt with not by the Department of Employment but by the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Elfrida Rathbone Society. I know something of its excellent work. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the division of responsibility between the Departments. Clearly, there is a difficult interface between training for employment in the labour market and training which is intended to help people to continue their lives. My hon. Friend is right that we should keep the matter under review, but meanwhile we have a responsibility. Through our arrangements and our contracts with the training and enterprise councils, we are in a position to discharge that responsibility.

Is not it the case that young people with special needs in the London borough of Newham and Essex have few opportunities because, as the Newham Recorder has reported, the youth training guarantee is not being honoured and hundreds of young people are leaving school without a job or a YT place? What is the Minister's explanation for that disgraceful situation? What action will he take to rectify it?

Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Some concern was expressed about the ability of Essex training and enterprise council to fulfil the guarantee. We investigated the matter and took appropriate action. Among other things, the TECs are contracted to deliver the guarantee; they are funded accordingly and will deliver the guarantee.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) is widely shared? Such people may fall between two stools and benefit more socially than industrially. Is there any basis for recent press reports that the possibility of reviving the community programme is being studied?

I promise my hon. Friend that, according to the boundaries mentioned in an earlier question, we shall keep the position under review. The Government are always reviewing the options open to them in the labour market, but we have no plans to introduce a temporary work scheme [Interruption.]

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

Does not the Minister realise how complacent and out of touch his answers sound? Up and down the country, those who are involved in running training and enterprise councils and voluntary organisations say that because of the cuts in the Department's training budget more and more young people with special needs are experiencing difficulty in obtaining a place on a training course. Is not it typical of the Government that they put at risk the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in our society?

This is another one of the Labour party's cuts. Expenditure on youth training has increased by £38 million this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of the trade union certification officer.

The Certification Officer for Trade Unions and Employer Associations is an independent authority appointed under statute. He has a number of functions, which include ensuring that trade unions keep proper accounts, ensuring observance of the law on union mergers, reimbursing certain costs of unions' postal ballots and dealing with complaints about union executive elections and membership registers. Copies of the certification officer's annual report for 1990, which was published on 16 April, are available in the Library.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the certification officer's workload should be lightened by following the best practice in Europe, as advocated by the Labour party, and banning contributions from trade unions to political parties? Does he agree that the certification officer needs more staff to ensure that the fiasco that took place in the union that sponsors the Leader of the Opposition does not take place again?

My hon. Friend, typically, shows a close interest in and care for the work of the certification officer and I am glad that he has brought it to the attention of the House. May I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the certification officer and to assure my hon. Friend that, as in many other matters of industrial relations legislation, we shall keep this under the closest possible review? When evidence shows the need for action, we shall not hesitate to take it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details of the number of women in part-time employment; and what is the average level of wages.

There were 5,146,000 women in part-time employment in Great Britain in December 1990. The 1990 new earnings survey estimated that the average gross hourly part-time earnings of women were £3·95.

The Under-Secretary will recall that answers given to the House on 15 March showed that almost 250,000 women in Scotland were in part-time employment, which meant that their earnings were under the European threshold of decency, and that almost 8,000 of them were earning less than £2 per hour. What steps will the Government take to ensure that companies are prosecuted if they are found to be illegally underpaying women in part-time employment? Only two companies have been prosecuted in the past decade.

If anyone is in breach of the law, he should be pursued and prosecuted. I shall happily look into the point that the hon. Lady made. I do not know whether the Scottish National party supports a minimum wage, but she must understand that its consequences would be certainly to destroy jobs and to withdraw jobs that would otherwise be available to women.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the training credits pilots.

All 11 pilot schemes for training credits commenced on time on 1 April. Young school leavers in pilot areas are now receiving training credits and starting to use them to obtain approved training of their choice.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that training credits are already popular with young people because they extend choice and opportunity in the type of training which young people undertake? Does he agree that training credits are a great deal more popular than the Labour party's out-of-date and outmoded policies which rely on compulsion for their implementation?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The right way forward is to put buying power directly into the hands of these young people. Our pilot schemes, all of which commenced on time, are proving the success of that approach.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after Questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall have further meetings later today.

In the past week we have heard some Scottish Tories describe Scottish devolution as an immovable force which their party ignores at its risk. Other Scottish Tories have described it as a fantasy and a dead duck and yet others have described it as a London-based plot hatched by the chairman of the Conservative party to win cheap votes in Scotland. With which of those views does the Prime Minister agree—or is this yet another important issue on which he does not know his own mind?

Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain fully so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 12 years this country has gained tremendous advantages through substantial reductions in income tax levels? Does he further agree that to increase income tax rates again, even for those on moderate levels of earnings, such as classroom teachers in London, would be a retrograde step and a major blow to the aspirations of millions of people and to economic output?

I certainly would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It applies also to national insurance contributions, because what matters is the net disposable income that people have left in their pockets to spend. People will have noticed the Opposition's plans in that regard.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity publicly to oppose a two-tier system in hospitals, such as Watford general hospital, where the patients of non budget-holding general practitioners must wait longer and take second place, regardless of their clinical need?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. There will be no reductions in existing operations in Watford. Instead, as a result of our reforms, some people will get operations faster than otherwise they would have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

The Prime Minister has just confirmed the existence of a two-tier service. Does he realise that a two-tier system such as he supports is, as the British Medical Association says, "unethical"? Does he recognise that even in its existence it is a violation of the basic principle of the national health service that treatment must be determined according to clinical need, not contracts or commercial decisions? Is not it obvious from what he says and allows that although we believe in a national health service on the basis of need, the Prime Minister believes in one according to deals?

None of that remotely follows. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first answer. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time: operations are done on the basis of clinical need. What we are seeking and attaining are a more efficient system and more efficient use of the large resources in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman's plans would take money away from the NHS as a result of many of his spiteful proposals. He has made it clear that he will provide no extra funding. We need no lectures on health care from him.

The Prime Minister not only misrepresents me, he misrepresents what is going on—[Interruption.]

Order.

The Prime Minister misrepresents what is going on now. Will he take this opportunity to say that there are no cases that he will allow in which the patients of non budget-holding GPs will be allowed to take second place to the patients of budget-holding GPs who have made contractual arrangements with hospitals to gain preference for their patients?

The right hon. Gentleman should read what I have said twice already: that operations are done on the basis of clinical need.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the laws on Sunday trading? In the light of recent events, does he agree that it might now be appropriate to bring our laws in England and Wales into line with those of Scotland, where the commitment to the Sabbath and keeping Sunday special goes hand in hand with sensible Sunday trading laws?

As my hon. Friend will know, a number of cases are being considered by the courts. Some may go to appeal. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is consulting interested parties to see whether a consensus can be found on Sunday trading law that would be acceptable both to them and to the House, which has repeatedly expressed a view on the matter. I believe that that is the right way ahead on a matter of conscience such as this. Experience in Scotland suggests that a suitable consensus is possible. I hope that we can find one south of the border.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister know that last year in Lewisham there were only 320 employment training places when there were 10,000 unemployed people? Can he tell me, therefore, why today, when unemployment has increased by a third, to over 14,000, the number of employment training places is to be cut by a third? What faith does he expect the British people to put in his commitment to a fairer society?

As the hon. Lady will know, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe to guarantee a training place to everyone under the age of 18 who is not already in full-time education or employment. Spending on training is £2·7 billion this year. That is two and a half times more than was spent by the previous Labour Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will fight for the interests of the small family farm in Britain at the common agricultural policy discussions that are to come and also by providing assistance for such items as expertise in marketing and help for farmers' incomes, which have fallen to an unacceptable level?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will defend the interests of all farmers, including small family farmers, in the forthcoming Community discussions. The House knows that, as currently framed, the Commission's plans for CAP reform would discriminate against United Kingdom farmers, largely because our average farm size is greater than that in other member states. We have given considerable help to small farmers recently, in particular by increasing milk quotas and by means of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We shall continue to help.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by-election who yesterday advocated the opting out of not just the Royal Gwent hospital but the Nevill Hall hospital as well?

Opting out—that is to say, putting control in the hands of local people within the national health service—is the right way to produce better management and local choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not favour local choice, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in terms of education yesterday.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Given the Government's desire to extend choice in education further, and given the public's desire to see the highest possible standards of education everywhere, will my right hon. Friend find time today to look for ways to extend further choice in education?

We are very pleased to see extended choice in education. The new grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and open enrolment have provided considerable extra choice. I hope that parents will take advantage of it. It is clear that the Opposition do not like choice. Grant-maintained schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme, charitable status for private schools and the existing A-levels would all go and, with the Opposition's tax plans, most of the teachers would go as well.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Having clearly misled Parliament last week——

Order. No hon. Member misleads Parliament. The hon. Member knows that and he must rephrase his question.

Having misrepresented to Parliament last week the attitude of the British Medical Association and Britain's doctors as to GP contracts, why did the Prime Minister seek to cover up his mistakes by doctoring Hansard? Is that not true and does not the Prime Minister owe someone an apology?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and Mr. Speaker will make a statement about that matter at 3.30 pm. In advance of that statement, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Like every hon. Member, he knows that it is normal practice, when a Minister uses a quote, for the precise words and their source to be provided by Hansard. In this case, the name of the correct source was put into the record, but I am entirely happy for the original words to be reinstated. The magazine from which I quoted was GP Magazine but similar sentiments to those that I quoted, endorsing the reforms, have been expressed in the British Medical Journal, published by the BMA—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

I quote from a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal, which said:

"The reforms may not address all the problems of the NHS, but they do improve our capacity to specify the quality of services and to price improvements."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity, over the weekend, to reflect on the damage that would be done to our representative democracy by a system of proportional representation? This system would deprive people of their solely responsible local representative to satisfy the Liberals, the statisticians and the pundits who enjoy smoke-filled rooms.

I am not in favour of either smoke-filled rooms or proportional representation. I share my hon. Friend's view that it leaves minority parties determining Government policy and striking bargains for their support. That is not democracy, it is horse trading, and I will have no part in it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the fact that we, by reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. from 83 per cent., have increased the proportion of total yield of income tax paid by the highest 10 per cent. of taxpayers from 20 to 30 per cent? Is not this because many of the most wealthy people are now staying in this country and bringing their money back, so that we get 40 per cent. of something, whereas the Opposition would get 59 per cent. of nothing?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The evidence as to the amount of tax collected with lower rates is clear for all to see. It is equally clear that, under the Labour party's proposals, 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not be better off, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said a year ago. The figure is now one in eight. When the shadow Chancellor gets at the figures they change daily, and when we have finished costing Labour's programme they will change again.

The Prime Minister will be aware that, in relation to his policy on local government finance, only after huge public protest and widespread cuts in services did he decide that he had better review the policy inherited from his predecessor and then to ditch it. Does he agree that his policy on the opting out of hospitals was equally widely opposed and that it is now clear that it, too, will result in widespread cuts in services? For the sake of consistency of principle, will the Prime Minister carry out a wholesale review and then ditch the policy?

No. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's views, and I do not believe that his analysis is remotely correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how it turns out. He will find that he is wrong. For many years we have had to ensure that the national health service uses its resources to the most efficient extent. At last the present Government have had the courage to introduce a system that will ensure that the money is used to best effect for patients. I believe that, for the national health service, that is the right way to proceed and the one which will produce the maximum amount of good patient care. That is what we propose to do.