To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of Norfolk and Waveney TEC to discuss small firms.

My right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Lineker regularly at meetings of the group of ten training and enterprise council chairmen. This group of regional representatives of all of the TECs considers the full range of TEC activities, including support for small firms. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to chair the next group meeting in mid-November.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets representatives of Norfolk and Waveney TEC he will be told that the TEC regards the youth training scheme as an important priority. Does my hon. Friend agree that every youngster who wants to take a place on YTS should have the opportunity to do so? Does he also agree that, particularly in today's climate, it is crucial that TECs work closely with the enterprise agencies to help small firms? Will he applaud the Norfolk and Waveney TEC's decision to contract out to the enterprise agencies the enterprise allowance scheme?

My hon. Friend is correct. The TECs, my hon. Friend's in particular, the Department of Employment and the Government give total and absolute priority to youth training, and it is through the TECs and their excellent work that that guarantee is being delivered. We are giving young people the training that they need.

When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of Norfolk and Waveney TEC will he take the opportunity to discuss with him business people's attitudes towards training? Does he agree that it is important that business people and industrialists now set up training initiatives, particularly in engineering, to avoid future skill shortages before the problem arises?

Yes. It will be well known to my hon. Friend that the great bulk of training has been, is and will continue to be done in the private sector by employers. However, the TECs have, as one of their main tasks, to identify training needs in each locality and to work with doneemployers to identify how that can best be done, so bringing together the efforts of the Government through TECs and the private sector to deliver the best possible quality of training. That is done, and the new investors in people initiative, launched by my right hon. and learned Friend just a few days ago, is yet another important step in emphasising the importance in the private sector of a continuing training effort, and that will continue to be the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in response to the Green Paper issued in July.

As of yesterday, 49 had been received. The closing date for receipt of representations is tomorrow.

Will not the proposals contained in the Green Paper continue the excellent work of the Government's previous trade union legislation and give more power and influence to individual citizens and individual trade union members? Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the Labour party's representations will be affected in any way by the recent election of a communist as the deputy general secretary of Labour's greatest paymaster, the Transport and General Workers Union?

I am looking forward to the Opposition's representations in response to the Green Paper. There is still time for those representations to be received and I assume that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will be rushing away from questions this afternoon to put the finishing touches to his representations.

Will the Minister answer this question? During the past few weeks, there have been statements that Britain has the lowest strike record for 30 years. But we have the biggest depression and recession since the end of the second world war. How can the unions, communists or any such people, be to blame?

As a result of the laws passed by the Government, we have the lowest number of strikes for about 60 years. Is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggesting that the real remedy for any ills that we may be suffering at the moment is to make it easier for people to strike? Of course that is the remedy suggested by his Front-Bench spokesman.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any representations about the citizens charter proposal to give members of the public the right to stop unlawful public sector strikes? Does he agree that it is high time that Labour made clear its views on that?

Yes. That proposal has been widely welcomed and, as I said earlier, I await with eager anticipation representations on it from the Labour party.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House about the representation received from Conservative trade unionists? In particular, can he say whether it is accurate that they said that the balance had already swung too far against trade unions and that they, like everybody else, regard the Secretary of State as a right-wing loony?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We have yet to receive representations on the Green Paper from Conservative trade unionsts. The hon. Gentleman is falling into the customary trap of relying on unsubstantiated newspaper reports, which on this occasion appear to have little basis in truth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women were in full-time employment in the United Kingdom, and in each standard planning region, in June 1979 and at the latest date for which figures are available.

Information relating to full-time employment in Northern Ireland is not

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

Unemployment in the United Kingdom on a seasonally adjusted basis rose by 35,700 between August and September to 2,461,000. No one should underestimate the human difficulties that lie behind the available. Total male civilian employment and full-time female civilian employment is available for each of the standard regions. As the reply contains a statistical table, I shall, with permission, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

I am not surprised that the Minister did not venture to give a figure. Is not it true that employment in the United Kingdom as a whole is down by almost 1 million compared with June 1979, that in Wales there are 116,000 fewer jobs for men and that overall there are 70,000 fewer jobs in the economy? Does the Minister think that this loss of jobs and the increase in unemployment is a price that is well worth paying?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. Since 1979 there has been an overall increase of about 800,000 in the number of men and women in work. If we take as our starting point the end of the last recession, there has been an increase in Wales of 167,000. That is a 17 per cent. increase, which is well above the United Kingdom average.

Does my hon. Friend agree that part-time jobs are important, especially to women? Why do not the Opposition stop denigrating them?

My hon. Friend is right. Part-time jobs are important. It is sometimes suggested that people with part-time jobs would prefer full-time jobs. That question has been canvassed in opinion surveys, and recent surveys of part-time workers show that only 6 per cent. of them want to work full time.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the plight of one of my constituents, Mr. John Smith of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen, who is aged 43 and has five children? Mr. Smith is an unemployed salesman with more than 25 years experience and has applied for 1,200 jobs in the past 19 months. Is not his plight testimony to the bankruptcy of Government policies in general and Howard's way in particular?

Everyone must have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituent and those who find themselves in similar circumstances, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask himself whether the policies advocated by his party —to make it easier to strike, to embrace the proposals of the European Commission's social action programme, which would add so much in costs and burdens to British employers, and to introduce a national statutory minimum wage, which would destroy countless jobs—would help his constituent and those in a similar position.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are rightly worried about unemployment should treat strictures from Opposition Members with some caution? Surely they will recall that under every single Labour Government unemployment has steadily risen rather than fallen. As my right hon. and learned Friend just confirmed, a national minimum wage would simply lead to more people on the dole.

My hon. Friend is correct. Under every Labour Government but one since 1929, unemployment has doubled. In the case of the one exception, it increased by 54 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there has been a significant change in the pattern of unemployment during the past two or three years? By now some intermediate areas have higher levels of unemployment than some of those designated as development areas. In those circumstances, when will the Government reconsider the development area strategy to help those areas that are at present intermediate but certainly need more assistance?

These matters are constantly kept under review, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would represent the solution that he supposes to the difficulties that we are encountering at present. The answer lies in restoring our competitiveness, overcoming inflation and recreating the conditions that have led to a record creation of jobs —well over 2·5 million since 1983.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in constituencies such as mine, unemployment is significantly lower than it was at the time of the last election? Jobs would be put at risk if the Government adopted the policies to which the Labour party is committed, such as massive defence expenditure cuts above those already introduced, which would put the future of the Challenger tank at risk. A statutory minimum wage would also wipe out thousands of jobs in Yorkshire.

My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. What he has identified as true of his constituency and Yorkshire would be reproduced across the country. The policies that the Labour party advances would be disastrous for employment. That is understood by my hon. Friend and, indeed, by the country generally.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the chambers of commerce quarterly survey which will be out this Thursday and shows that jobs are continuing to be shed at an alarming rate in both the service and manufacturing industries? Does he also realise that as a result of rising unemployment and the cuts in his Department's budget, his Government are simply no longer meeting their guarantee of a training place to the young and the unemployed who have been shunted in their thousands on to training queues? The Secretary of State may dispute that, but if we provide him with the evidence that these waiting lists exist, will he undertake here and now to provide the funds necessary to remove them and honour the Government's promises?

The hon. Gentleman will know full well that the survey of the chambers of commerce of which both he and I have been provided with advance copies —it is to be published on Thursday—shows a substantial increase in business confidence on the part of those who responded to that survey. [Interruption.] Yes, I have read it. It will not do for the hon. Gentleman to deny that such encouraging evidence exists. It does him and his party no credit that he should constantly and obsessively seek to identify bad news and ignore the good news which exists in the very document that he cites as evidence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total numbers on the list of employed who are counted more than once.

Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available. However, the labour force survey estimated that 724,000 people held a second job as an employee in the spring of 1990.

Does not the Minister's admission that some three quarters of a million people are counted twice in the employment figures—as well as trainees who are counted as though they were in full-time professional jobs, and part-timers who are counted as though they were full-timers—prove that the Government's much-parroted claims about employment levels constitute a monumental lie? Instead of running away from the rigorous examination of his policies carried out in a television studio, and instead of attacking the BBC, should not the Secretary of State try something new? Should he not adopt a novel—novel in his case, that is—approach to the employment figures, and tell the truth?

If the rather over-the-top strictures that the hon. Gentleman has tried to apply to the Government were remotely true, they would also be true of what was done by his party when it was in government. The House should be aware that the method of counting used in this instance is exactly the same as it has been for 20 years—since 1971, if not earlier. I did not hear any of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues make the same point when their party was in office.

Given the dismissive way in which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred to part-time jobs a moment ago, will my hon. Friend confirm that only about 6 per cent. of those in part-time work claim that they are seeking full-time work? That means that 94 per cent. of people in part-time work who were looking for such work, have found it and are happy in it.

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which echoes the point made so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan).

When will the ministerial team apologise to the nation for its unique record, and its unique failure in regard to labour market policies? Will the Secretary of State and his team tell us why 790,000 people have joined the dole queue in a year, why 662,000 have lost their jobs, why 43,000 fewer training places have been provided over the last year and why there are 53,000 vacancies? Will they also tell us why—most worrying of all—in a year in which unemployment rose by 800,000 in Europe, 700,000 of those people were unemployed in Britain? We have a unique recession. When will the Secretary of State start apologising to the country?

The hon. Gentleman has outdone even his dismal record for selective quotation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the employment action programme; and if he will make a statement.

I have received many favourable responses to this new programme from training and enterprise councils and others. The programme is now in operation. The first people joined it some three weeks ago. We are on course as planned to have 30,000 participants by March next year, with 60,000 helped in 1992–93.

Following yesterday's welcome announcement of a new allowance for disabled working people, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there will be opportunities under his proposals for disabled people—including the mentally ill and mentally handicapped—to gain work experience? Does he agree that the TUC's boycott of his excellent programme is utterly callous and irresponsible?

I can indeed confirm that people with disabilities will be given preferential access to the employment action programme, and that they will not need a qualifying period of unemployment. Indeed, people with disabilities have generally been given higher priority on the Government's training schemes for some months now and, for the first time, have been part of the aim group.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Employment Select Committee has placed in the Library copies of letters that it has received from 60 training and enterprise councils, which tell us that they are struggling and finding it virtually impossible to implement the employment training and youth training guarantees because of a shortage of cash? In view of those letters, will the Secretary of State resist Treasury attempts to make further cuts and obtain a substantial increase in his budget from the public expenditure round so that the TECs can do their jobs properly?

The question is about employment action. That is securely funded. Places will be provided in the way that I have suggested. We are committed to the guarantees on employment training and youth training. Those guarantees are being delivered. There can be no question other than that the TECs will have the resources that they need to deliver those guarantees in the next financial year, which is the subject of the current public expenditure survey.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it surprising that Opposition Members are opposed to employment action that would help the unemployed, while, at the same time, they want to create unemployment through a national minimum wage?

Very little surprises me about the Opposition, but it is noteworthy that, despite the fact that they claim to care for unemployed people, they resist almost every initiative that is designed to help unemployed people. Despite the fact that they purport to care about training, they resist almost every training initiative that this Government have introduced. Their words do not match up, nor do their words match the actions for which they were responsible when they were last in government.

The 30,000 places referred to by the Secretary of State pale into insignificance when compared with the rise of 230,000 unemployed since he announced employment action. When the Under-Secretary of State gave a written answer to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) in June highlighting the differences between employment action and the old community programme, he omitted two very important distinctions —the difference in funding and the difference in the number of places available. If the Secretary of State is unable substantially to expand his scheme, does it mean that he lacks confidence in his scheme or that he has lost the battle against the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?

The hon. Gentleman totally fails to take into account the range of opportunities that are now available to help unemployed people—opportunities that were not available when the community programme was in existence. There was no employment training then, nor the range of ways in which we now help unemployed people through the Employment Service. This year we shall be helping 840,000 unemployed people, over and above the help that we give to every unemployed person when he or she comes into the job centre to sign on. That is what the hon. Gentleman has to take into account if he is to make a fair comparison.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now employed in those travel-to-work areas situated in or adjacent to Warwickshire; and what was the comparable figure for 1983.

It is difficult to make the precise comparisons sought by my hon. Friend, but using the information which is available there was an increase of employees in employment in the Warwickshire area from 1,064,200 in September 1984 to 1,118,300 in September 1989.

I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful and interesting reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is pleasing that at a time of some unemployment we see the number of jobs growing in and around Warwickshire? Will he join me in congratulating local authorities, such as the Warwickshire county council, the Rugby borough council and the Warwick district council on pursuing an enlightened policy that has attracted business and industry to the county of Warwick, so reducing unemployment and increasing the number of jobs?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those local authorities. I take this opportunity also to pay tribute to the excellent work, together with the local authority, of the Coventry and Warwickshire training and enterprise council under the leadership of Geoffrey Whalen. This year they are spending £·31·28 million of taxpayers money on training and enterprise and are doing a very good job.

Does the Minister accept that unemployed workers in the west midlands, adjacent to Warwickshire, face almost twice the unemployment to vacancy ratio, at 37·6 per cent., as in the remainder of the country? Is not it therefore twice as hard to escape from the dole queue? Was not that position made immeasurably more difficult last week when 1,300 mining jobs in Coventry and Warwickshire were axed by British Coal?

Of course, we are concerned when there are any large-scale redundancies and the Employment Service stands ready to assist. I shall inquire about what is being done by the Employment Service in the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I know that it is very active in any cases of large-scale redundancies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to regulate pay.

I have no plans to introduce legislation to regulate pay. Pay is a matter best determined by the parties concerned in the light of their particular circumstances.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the report by UBS Phillips and Drew that the second stage of the Opposition's minimum wage policy would destroy 1·4 million jobs? Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that?

Yes, I have seen that report and I take it seriously. Just a few days ago, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said on the radio that the introduction of a statutory national minimum wage would not cost a single job. During our debate last Wednesday, I repeatedly offered him the opportunity to cite any independent survey that supported his assertion. Quite unaccountably, he declined to take that opportunity. He cannot cite a single survey that supports his assertion.

Is the Minister aware that, even without the national minimum wage, another 155 Dundonians joined the dole queue yesterday following the announcement of yet more job losses in a local manufacturing company? The company explained that it had to axe the jobs because of the continuing recession, which the Minister tells us is now over. Whom are we to believe— hard-pressed companies faced with a savage recession and forced to put workers on to the dole, or Westminster-bound Ministers, probably high on magic mushrooms, who imagine that they see economic growth everywhere?

We are coming out of recession, but, sadly, unemployment is always one of the last things to turn as an economy comes out of recession. I regret that as much as the hon. Gentleman does, but how does it provide any justification for wantonly adding to the ranks of the unemployed by pursuing the policies advanced by the Labour party?

Would not a national minimum wage, instead of helping the low paid —many of whom are women—simply make low-paid work illegal? Are not there two dangers in that? The first, which my right hon. and learned Friend has already highlighted, is that many such jobs would disappear. The second is that many of those jobs would slide into the black economy, with a loss of rights for the women concerned in terms of the protection of health and safety at work, much of which is Conservative legislation. Would not there also be the loss of income tax and national insurance contributions?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to another real danger that would arise from the Opposition's lunatic proposals. It is far better to help those on low pay who need help by making family credit available to them, as we do.

Will the Minister confirm that not only does he oppose Labour's proposal for a national minimum wage of £3·40 an hour, but he plans to abolish the existing wages councils, making Britain the only country anywhere in Europe—this applies also to the United States—that has no minimum wage protection? Will not 2·5 million people, mainly women, lose protection at law as a result of that policy? The Minister will irrevocably stamp his party not just as the party of mass unemployment, but as the party of poverty pay.

When I saw the hon. Gentleman rise to his feet, I hoped that he would at last provide some corroboration of his unsubstantiated assertion that his national minimum wage policy would not cost a single job. But of course he cannot do that. Instead he continues to make his misleading comparisons with countries in Europe that do not have the lunatic policy that his party wishes to foist on this country, because they know of the damaging consequences that would flow from it and because they have read the studies of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and other bodies that have said how many jobs would be lost as a result of its introduction. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not see a permanent place for wages councils in the way in which our economy is regulated and, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, we made that clear a long time ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department intends to (a) reopen a jobcentre in the Leeds, West constituency and (b) provide at least one job club in the Leeds, West constituency.

I remember that the hon. Gentleman raised this matter in January. I have looked at it again, but, as he knows, we have no plans to reopen a jobcentre in Leeds, West. Clients in the area are served by the integrated jobcentre at Stanningley. Jobcentre facilities are available in nearby Pudsey, Yeadon and central Leeds. We do not have plans for a job club in Leeds, West because constituents can use the job club facilities at Pudsey jobcentre, which is within easy travelling distance, and in central Leeds, where facilities are being extended following my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement on 19 June about extra job club places.

Is the Minister aware that in a written question on 26 February 1981 one of his predecessors promised the House that he would defer the closure of jobcentres until unemployment fell? Is he further aware that unemployment in my constituency rose by 42 per cent. between last September and this September? Will he confirm that people who have to travel from my constituency to visit job clubs and jobcentres have to pay for that? What action will he take to provide a service to my unemployed constituents, or is he trying to pretend that they do not exist?

We make no such pretence. For the enlightenment of the House, I must say that the nearest jobcentre at Stanningley is only one and a half miles away from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not think that he has a good case. The services that are provided by jobcentres are being much improved. Hon. Members who visit their jobcentres—I hope that they all do—will know that that is true. They are being improved in the hon. Gentleman's area and I do not believe that he has a fair ground for complaint.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the Crewe and Nantwich constituency to discuss the unemployment figures for May and June.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit the area. There were 3,851 unemployed claimants in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency in September 1991, which is more than 33 per cent. fewer than in September 1983, when unemployment was at its peak in the constituency.

Is the Minister aware that my constituency has one of the most rapidly rising unemployment rates and that, despite the desperate need for rolling stock, firms of the quality of British Rail Engineering Ltd. cannot fill their order books? Rolls-Royce Ltd., which has a history of providing high-quality engineering, shut down at extremely short notice without any indication that this would be the last layoff between now and Christmas. What hope does he have for the employees of those companies or for people who are desperately looking for employment?

I can well understand the hon. Lady's concern about the extent of the job losses that her constituents have experienced. That concern is widely shared, not least among my colleagues and myself. She asked for hope. Between April and September 1991, almost 80 per cent. of the 1,700 restart interviewees in the Crewe area found either jobs, training or other positive outcomes. Job clubs in Crewe have helped 98 people into jobs since April, and the South and East Cheshire TEC— one of the most dynamic and successful TECs—is fully operational in her area. It is well understood by Conservative Members that 50 per cent. of people who unfortunately lose their jobs, including in the hon. Lady's constituency, find themselves back in employment within three months. That is something positive for people to look for. We shall do all that we can to help them to do just that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Government training places were available for young people aged 16 to 18 years in (a) 1978–79 and (b) currently.

In England and Wales in 1978–79 there were on average about 6,000 young people receiving training in the youth opportunities programme compared with 260.000 now in youth training.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that 89 per cent. of the people who complete youth training go straight into jobs or on to further education —a far better start than Labour was ever able to provide? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that it is wrong for local socialists to say that the Government do not guarantee training places for our young people in Basildon?

I can confirm both points. It is true that 89 per cent. of those who complete youth training go into jobs or on to further education. Some 68 per cent. do so with a qualification. That is a measure of the improvement in the quality of the training opportunities now available to our young people. I can confirm also that the guarantee is being met in Essex. Recently, we made additional resources available to the Essex training and enterprise council to ensure that the guarantee was fully met.

The Secretary of State seems to think that he gave a full reply to the question, but he gave information on only England and Wales. Does he recall that this is supposed to be a United Kingdom Parliament? Will he therefore give the figures for Scotland?

The latest figures for Scotland are not yet available because the local enterprise companies in Scotland have not made them available to the Scottish Office. I shall ensure that the hon. Lady gets the figures as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Central Employment Recruitment and Training Ltd. in my constituency was the first organisation to get an employment action scheme up and running and that that has proved to be a valuable scheme? Is not it an absolute disgrace that, faced with the largest youth training programme in Europe and with employment training and the employment action scheme, the only reaction of the Transport and General Workers Union —which sponsors the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—was to boycott those programmes?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are still waiting for a single word of criticism to pass the lips of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Leader of the Opposition—both of whom are sponsored by the TGWU—about that union's disgraceful decision in July to boycott youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils. Those are the men who are supposed to galvanise the nation. They cannot even persuade their own trade union to turn its back on that disgraceful boycott.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the level of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 220,000 in September 1991. This represents 9·1 per cent. of the region's work force. Unemployment in September was 74,000 lower than at its peak in July 1986.

Bearing in mind the fact that the Wakefield area alone has lost about 20,000 mining-related jobs since 1979, what assessment have the Government made of the implications for employment prospects in that area of the delay in constructing the channel tunnel rail link to Yorkshire? Is not it disgraceful that the Government appear to be more concerned with the interests and problems of certain Tory marginals in London than with the employment potential of thousands of jobs in the north of England?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because it relates to his Department. As for my Department, I have already said in answering the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) in relation to large-scale redundancies in the coal mining industry that I shall ensure that the Employment Service is providing a full service in this case, as in all other cases of large-scale redundancies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many stoppages occurred in the 12 months to December 1990; how many in the previous 12 months; what was the annual average in the 10-year period ending December 1989; and if he will make a statement.

There were 630 stoppages in the 12 months to December 1990, 701 in the previous 12 months and an annual average in the 1980s of 1,129. Provisional figures for the year to August 1991 show there have been 420 stoppages, the lowest number of any 12-month period since the year to April 1934.

Is not it a tremendous benefit to the country that, as a result of action taken by the Conservative Government, strikes are practically a thing of the past? Does my hon. Friend remember the last year of the Labour Government—the winter of discontent—when strikers in the national health service stopped sick people getting into hospital, dead bodies went unburied and verminous refuse was left in the streets?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of those factors. The 1·9 million working days lost in 1990 were a quarter of the average for the 1980s and one seventh of the average for the 1970s. That must be not only a tribute to the legislative programme pursued by the Government through the 1980s, hut, I suspect, one of the main reasons for the enormous inflow of investment and jobs which expressed the confidence of people abroad, even if we do not have it from the Opposition.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the effects of a 27 per cent. cut in the defence budget? Will he further consult about the effects —especially on Scottish regiments—of a 50 per cent. cut in the defence budget?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the policies of the Labour and Liberal parties on defence. The Labour party's conference proposals, which a future Labour Government would be pressurised into accepting, would mean defence cuts of about £6 billion —[Interruption.];

Order. The Leader of the House must put his own interpretation on the question.

He is also answering the question. That would be more than the nation spends on the Army and Navy together. The Liberal's proposals would mean a cut in the Army of nearly 50,000 men below the level set out in "Options for Change". That is the equivalent of no Scottish regiments and no soldiers from Scotland. I hope that the whole nation and especially those with interests in defence and defence jobs will note the consequences of their policies and the contrast with ours.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to agree with the Secretary of State for Health in repudiating tax relief on private health insurance for the over–60s, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the scheme should be commended as

"definitely a way of getting more resources into the Health Service."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 1024.]

My right. hon. Friend was making it clear that he did not believe that there should be an extension of that particular scheme. Obviously, tax proposals are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

The right hon. Gentleman's memory is not serving him well. Just 48 hours ago the Secretary of State for Health said that he would not be at all surprised if the whole scheme was dropped in the next Budget. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that over a three-year period the Government are spending £150 million on supporting private health insurance. Would not that sum be better spent on maintaining and improving services in the national health service for elderly patients who are being hit by the closure of geriatric wards?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the figure is £60 million. Perhaps he should now answer the question that was put repeatedly yesterday and that has not been answered. How does the Labour party propose to fund and find the additional £650 million which would result from its changes in policies on charges, contracting out and the minimum wage? Those policies would reduce patient care and the Labour party refuses to answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, deputising for the Prime Minister, now answer the question that I asked him? The Secretary of State for Health has repudiated the private scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supports the scheme. What does the right hon. Gentleman think? Does he agree that the money would be better spent in the national health service helping the elderly with their needs instead of funding private health insurance?

I have already made it clear that what my right hon. Friend said was that he did not believe that there should be any extension of the scheme. The point is that the £60 million being devoted to the scheme is very small compared with the £650 million that would be taken away from patient care as a result of the Labour party's changes in policy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect today, as we complete the 12th Session of this Government, that after those 12 years, 1·4 million people now own their council homes and 9 million people are now shareholders for the first time? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those people will look forward to the Prime Minister's proposals for the reform of inheritance tax? Will he condemn those who oppose that reform, who are displaying not only the politics of envy, but the politics of revenge?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. One of the many great achievements of the 1980s has been the big increase in and wider spread of ownership throughout the community. It is no wonder that the Labour party looks to inheritance tax as a means of financing its high-spending policies. As my hon. Friend points out, Labour opposed all the policies that have brought about the greater increase in home ownership and the much wider spread of share ownership.

Is not it disgraceful that neither the Prime Minister nor any Cabinet minister has met representatives of the people and the police from Newcastle upon Tyne, where every day police and fire officers face more incidents than anywhere else in Britain, where every day, because of poll tax capping, care, schools and youth clubs are being cut and where every day, old people and women face a relentless campaign and a wave of crime and harassment? Is not that the real city challenge and have not the Government failed?

It is this Government who have constantly increased resources to the police, who have put police pay on a competitive level, who have considerably increased the numbers of police, who have supported them in all the difficult tasks that they do and who throughout have taken many steps to deal with the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions. It is this party which has put substantial resources and substantial support behind them.

Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 1286 on today's Order Paper? Will he ask the Prime Minister, as head of the security and intelligence services, to order an immediate inquiry into the alleged relationship between the Israeli intelligence service and Robert Maxwell and especially Mr. Nicholas Davies, the news editor of the Daily Mirror?

If any questions are raised about export sales to Iran—about this issue—which justify an investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry and any evidence is provided, I am sure that it will do so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel any remorse at the fact that, over the next few months, thousands of business men and tens of thousands of their employees will pay with their jobs and their livelihoods for the Government's economic mismanagement?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the most important way to ensure long-term prosperity and competitiveness is to get inflation down to competitive levels, as we have succeeded in doing. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that. throughout the 1980s, we saw substantial increases in the number of new businesses that have lasted, in the number of growing businesses and in new jobs. Of course, we regret the increase in unemployment, but I believe that it is our policies that will give us the path for growth in the 1990s that we had in the 1980s. It is important to recollect that about half those who become unemployed find a new job within three months. The policies that we have been pursuing have enabled that to happen.

To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to make an official visit to York.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall the campaign by animal lovers in York and, in particular, by the York branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to outlaw the export of live horses. Will he accept the grateful thanks of all those involved for the determined stand taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, to ensure that our national rules continue and that such deplorable exports do not take place?

I am well aware of the feelings in York. All hon. Members—certainly Conservative Members—are well aware of the concern felt by many at the possibility of changes in relation to our existing trade in horses policy, especially our restrictions on the export of live horses for slaughter. I am sure, therefore, that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on securing a most successful outcome to the Community negotiations and on ensuring that our policies on that issue can be maintained.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Following the statement by the Secretary of State for Health to the House yesterday, to the effect that it was illegal for NHS patients to be charged for services —except for the three categories prescribed by law —what redress does the right hon. Gentleman, who is standing in for the Prime Minister today, suggest to my constituent, Mr. Charlie Harding of Ely, who was charged £100 for his nebuliser by Llandough hospital's chest medicine department and who is still paying £32 a year for the nebuliser to be maintained? Mr. Harding was torpedoed during world war 2 and is now being torpedoed again by this two-faced Government, who say that charging is wrong but who do not do anything about it? What redress does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind to help Charlie Harding get his money back?

I understand that the health authority has provided the nebuliser on loan and the hon. Gentleman will know —

It is a different case.

In one particular case, the equipment has been provided on loan. With regard to other cases, I wish to make the position absolutely clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that there will be no charges for patients on the national health service and we will look at cases where payments have already been made.

Like my hon. Friends, I know that my right hon. Friend very much welcomes the statement by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, especially with regard to our additional provision for residential homes. Will my right hon. Friend note, comment upon and compare our caring approach on residential homes with the approach of the Labour party, whose friends in Nottinghamshire have spent the past six months trying to close the 12 homes in our county?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The policies that we have been pursuing in respect of care in the community, which includes residential homes, have very considerably improved the care and resources devoted to such elderly residents. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the additional resources—well above the level of inflation—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced yesterday for them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House now settle the dispute between the Secretary of State for Health, who told the House yesterday that it is illegal to charge national health patients for fertility treatment, and the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, who claimed that it is perfectly legal? No matter who is right or wrong with regard to the legal technicalities, will the Government intervene now to ensure that such treatment is available free on the NHS?

The position is absolutely clear. It is illegal for the NHS to charge NHS patients except in the limited respects allowed by statute. The NHS has, of course, never provided every service in every area. It is up to local health authorities to decide local priorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That has always been the case and it was the case under the previous Government. There is nothing. unusual about that. As I said to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), if there are specific examples of NHS bodies overstepping the law, we shall investigate them