To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she proposes to promote more employment opportunities in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

The Government work with a number of agencies such as the Rural Development Commission and Scottish Enterprise to promote enterprise, economic diversity and employment in rural areas. Using the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils, we have a range of facilities and programmes for people in rural areas.

Is the Minister aware of the locally derived initiative that Scottish Borders Enterprise has put together, called "Packaged Training", which is particularly appropriate for rural areas given the distances involved in getting people to training opportunities? Is he also aware that, this year, the budget of Scottish Borders Enterprise for that purpose has been cut from £530,000 to £380,000? Last year, 180 people were given an opportunity to retrain, but, sadly, that number will be cut because the budget for this year has already been used. Will the Minister attempt to find ways of providing extra funds so that such employment opportunities can continue to be provided in the future?

As I said, we provide a range of facilities to help in rural areas. The points that the hon. Gentleman raised are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I shall ensure that they are brought to his attention.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the work of enterprise agencies, particularly those in rural areas such as the Fens Business Enterprise Trust in my constituency? Is he aware that in the current economic climate, funding for such enterprise agencies has become increasingly difficult to obtain? Will he give some consideration to providing more centralised funding to allow that good work to continue?

I am not sure that more centralised funding is the way to go about the problem. Perhaps a better way to proceed is to provide money to the TECs, as we have done in the past two years, so that they can make their own decisions. That is probably preferable to the Government's making more centralised decisions. I shall. however, consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the quality and quantity of training places available to young people.

I am satisfied that, across the country as a whole, the quality and quantity of youth training places are meeting the needs of young people and those of the economy.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment, but is she aware that when the chairmen of the north-west regional TECs sought a new Secretary of State, they did so because they wanted increased funds for training? What is her justification for the cuts in financial provision for each youth training place in Oldham and for the cuts in unit costs for training places throughout the north-west?

I met the chairmen of the north-west TECs recently, and we discussed a number of matters, including funding and flexibility. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there has been an unjustifiable variation in the unit costs for youth training places—a variation of £30 per place—and I think that it was right to bring those costs closer together.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. What representations has she received from Labour Members about the youth training scheme?

Very few, because my hon. Friend will know that Labour Members have consistently set their face against youth training; and I believe that the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors many Labour Members, voted to boycott youth training. That scandalous state of affairs has not been criticised by Opposition Members.

In welcoming the Secretary of State to her new duties, may I inquire whether she has read the excellent pamphlet published by Youth Aid, the Children's Society and 30 other organisations, entitled "A Broken Promise: A Failure of Youth Training Policy"? It makes it clear that the youth training guarantee is not being delivered and that right across the country, including my constituency, thousands of young people are leaving school with no jobs, no training places and no benefits? What will she do to improve youth training?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read that important report, and that of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I must set the concerns expressed in those reports in context; 300,000 young people are successfully engaged in youth training. The Government will ensure a guaranteed place for every young person and no TEC has been or will be prevented from meeting that guarantee by a lack of resources. However, if there is a problem in the machinery, we shall look into it.

May I, as a Norfolk Member, also congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new appointment? Can she confirm that it is the Government's intention to ensure that every young person not in full-time education from the age of 16 has a training place? Will she visit Norwich at the earliest opportunity to check whether that policy is being carried out to the full?

I confirm that there is a guaranteed place for every young person who needs one. I intend to visit Norwich shortly.

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her appointment. Does she recognise that an equally important statistic is not the 300,000 young people on youth training places but the 100,000 who are struggling to find places? Is she also aware that the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the former Chairman of the Select Committee, showed that half the TECs were having difficulty meeting the youth guarantee? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has been misled by her civil servants, or that she is ignorant about what is happening to youth training—the simple fact being that the guarantee is not being delivered by the Government?

I repeat that the Government do and will ensure that there is a guaranteed place for every young person. I accept that there is some waiting for places, but that is to be expected, given the importance of placing young people in training that suits their needs. As I said, if there is a problem with machinery, I shall certainly look into it. The machinery should not fail young people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received about the employment of people with disabilities; and if she will make a statement.

We have received a number of representations about the help that we provide for people with disabilities, including the sheltered placement scheme, the new placing assessment and counselling teams and the training provision available through TECs.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he make it one of his first priorities to examine closely why the public sector falls below the private sector in giving jobs to the disabled? Why does the BBC have one of the worst records of any public organisation, employing only 71 registered disabled among its 25,000 employees? Will he ask the BBC to give free television licences to the disabled until it starts to co-operate with his Department?

I am sure that the BBC will have broadcast my hon. Friend's message, which I hope will be received. As for the differences in employment practice between the public and private sectors, it is true that, in general, the quotas are least well met by the public sector. But I should say, in defence of both sectors, that the number of people registered as disabled is about 1 per cent. of the work force and the quota is 3 per cent., making it a mathematical impossibility for employers to achieve their legal obligation.

Does it not concern the Minister that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that there was not one disabled person working at No. 10 Downing street? Before the Government lecture the BBC or anybody else, will they put their own house in order?

I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies she has to promote employment for British people within the EC.

We are working to give our people better access to jobs in other EC countries by improving the system for exchanging job vacancies between member states, securing mutual recognition of qualifications and providing information about living and working elsewhere in the EC.

With British people keeping fitter and living longer, is it not against both the spirit of the times and natural justice that the European Commission should limit applicants to its posts to people aged 35 or under? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to root out that blatant example of Brussels ageism?

I agree. Indeed, the first speech that I made in my new post was on the subject of ageism. It is astonishing that the European Commission should be one of the worst practitioners of ageism. If one wants to apply for a job as a dishwasher or an administrator with the European Commission, one must be under the age of 35. On that basis, I hope that the House will forgive me for pointing out that most of us in this Chamber would be considered too old for the job.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the policy of ageism is not only undesirable but stupid. It diminishes the supply of talent to the economy throughout the Community, and I hope that efforts made to combat ageism will be taken on board by employers throughout the United Kingdom and by the European Commission.

I also welcome the Minister to his new position in the employment team. The whole of Scotland rejoices in the fact that he has now been moved from the Scottish Office. Unfortunately, however, he will now visit upon the unemployed and those who need training the right-wing policies that have done so much damage in Scotland.

Is the Minister aware that, between September 1979 and September 1991, the number of people employed in Britain fell by 13,000? Why do the Government have the most appalling employment record in post-war Britain? Does he accept that, with fewer people working in this country, his policies have failed? We now need urgent action to tackle not only the growing problem of training but the scandal of rising unemployment and the reduction in employment.

I am sure that the reasons for my moving from the Scottish Office, where I was responsible for education, to Employment were the same as the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's move from Scottish spokesman on education to employment. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that both of us now enjoy a wider brief.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about unemployment in the European Community, surely he would agree with those of us who argue that as there are 15.5 million people unemployed in the Community, our first priority must be to ensure that there are measures to create jobs and get people back to work. What a pity that Opposition Members support so many of the highly damaging proposals coming out of Europe which would destroy jobs in Britain and throughout the Community.

I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier comments about ageism. Does he agree that one of the great difficulties for many people trying to keep employment is the working of the pensions system., which makes it profitable for employers to get rid of people aged 50 and above, and makes it difficult for such people to find employment elsewhere?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to such difficulties. There are ways round those problems and we have asked managers and jobcentres, in discussion with employers, to draw to employers' attention the benefits of employing older workers and some of the ways round the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those participating in the Sheffield TEC programmes successfully find full-time employment.

In the Sheffield TEC area in the year to July 1991, some 65 per cent. of youth training leavers and 38 per cent. of employment training leavers who completed their training were in full-time employment.

The Government have been claiming to have met the guarantee month after month. Will they wake up to the fact that those courses are inadequate and not available to most people, and that there is not enough fund money and grants for people to afford to take the training courses—let alone get a job at the end of them?

No. The Government will take no lectures from the Labour party on the provision of training, about which it did absolutely nothing when in government. This Government are committed to providing training a concept totally alien to the action taken by the Labour party when it was last in office.

Does my hon. Friend agree that employment opportunities for people participating in the Sheffield training and enterprise council courses will be severely reduced if the 48-hour working week is imposed on British industry by the European Commission? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will fight those proposals and that there will be no compromise?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue he has raised is in the forefront of our minds. Obviously, the proposals will be negotiated and discussions will take place at Community level. We hope to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have to reduce the level of unemployment; and if she will make a statement.

The Government's role is to ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which enterprise can flourish and the battle against inflation can be won. We also wish to ensure that the Department's programmes give the highest priority to getting unemployed people back to work as quickly as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that today the voluntary organisation, the Strathclyde poverty alliance, has found that one in 10 of 16 and 17-year-olds in Strathclyde—5,500 young people—are not receiving the Government's youth guarantee? When will the Secretary of State open the books and let us have a full investigation of what is going on in the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies throughout the country? Does she agree that the Government have broken their promise?

As I have already said, there is a guarantee of a place for young people. If machinery is failing young people, we need to know about it. I shall certainly look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important contribution to the British economy made by part-time workers, particularly in the leisure and tourism industries in constituencies such as mine? Does she accept that it would be uniquely damaging to that industry were we to accept the part-time working directive supported by the Labour party, as it would cause untold damage to industries such as leisure and tourism?

Yes, I agree. A number of the policies supported by the Labour party would increase unemployment. In this country we need a flexible labour market, and opportunities for part-time work and women returners. We shall continue to fight for a flexible labour market.

Is the Minister aware that my constituency of Birmingham, Yardley recently suffered the highest increase in unemployment of any of the 12 Birmingham constituencies—a most unfortunate first for my constituency, which is not a region of traditionally high unemployment? Does she agree that that statistic shows the depth of the Tory recession and the extent of the Government's attack on manufacturing jobs in the west midlands and Birmingham?

Unemployment is certainly difficult for the individuals and families involved. Tackling unemployment and improving the skills and confidence of the work force are major elements in the Government's inner-city policy. I feel certain that the programmes provided by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will help the hon. Lady's constituents to return to work as quickly as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great enemies of employment is over-regulation of the labour market? Will she therefore not only reiterate her opposition to the idea of a 48-hour maximum week and all the other rubbish from Brussels, but recommit herself to deregulation here in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend well knows that the Government are committed to a deregulated labour market. We have made it clear from the outset that the damaging working time directive is unnecessary and has been produced on totally unjustifiable grounds as a health and safety measure.

I wish the right hon. Lady every strength in her new position, especially in her relations with the Treasury, where I suspect she will need it most. Does she agree that the most pressing problem that she faces is rising unemployment? If urgent action is not taken, hundreds of thousands more people will face the dole this summer. I urge her to show that the change in her Department is one of substance as well of image. She should abandon the dismal failure of employment action, reverse the policy of running down training for the unemployed, and provide the job and training opportunities that the country would support and that the unemployed desperately need.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I wonder whether this is his last but one Question Time in his present position and whether before long he, too, will take advantage of retraining opportunities. I remind him that the Department offers almost 1 million places on employment and training programmes this year, an increase of 100,000 on last year. We are increasing spending on youth training; but, above all, it is the economic framework, to which we are committed and the hon. Gentleman's party is not, which will increase employment opportunities fast.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. I am sure that she will agree that women Members are doing pretty well. Will she bear it in mind that women and men with disabilities are more punctual and have fewer days off than men? Could that fact be drawn to the attention of those who seek to engage personnel?

I thank my hon. Friend for her good wishes. She is right to draw the attention of employers and others to people with disabilities. That is a particular responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who will be taking forward policies in that area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of male unemployment in Grimsby (a) in 1982 and (b) at the latest available date.

In June 1983, the earliest date for which figures are available, on the unadjusted basis there were 8,380 men claiming unemployment-related benefits in the Grimsby travel-to-work area. There has been a reduction of 10.4 per cent., leaving a total of 7,507 in April 1992.

Is it not disgraceful that in the second Government-induced recession unemployment is almost up to the level that it attained in the first Government-induced recession, at about one man in six in Grimsby? Is it not also disgraceful that at such a time the Government are cutting spending on training? Instead of praying for a recovery, which cannot come at present interest rates, the Government should expand the economy and improve spending on training and the quality of its provision.

That is an obvious example of a hon. Member who prepared his supplementary before he heard the answer to his main question and stuck to it irrespective of the main answer. As I have said, there was a reduction of 10.4 per cent. in the year to April 1992, the year about which the hon. Gentleman asked. We really expect better of him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of unemployment since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom rose by 1.607 million between April 1979 and April 1992. It is still about 430,000 less than at its peak in July 1986.

I remind the Secretary of State that, as a direct result of Government policy, about 20,000 mining-related jobs have been lost in the Wakefield district during that period. When will the RECHAR and European social fund programmes commence in mid-Yorkshire, and when will local authorities be advised of the details of the schemes that are to be included? What assessment has been made of the implications of Government proposals for the privatisation of coal in areas such as the Wakefield district, not just in terms of miners' jobs but for industries such as mining engineering?

Jobs in manufacturing, as in all other sectors, have obviously been affected by the downturn in the economy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, manufacturing's share of GDP has declined under all Governments. The programmes that he mentions are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the United Kingdom population is in work and how that compares with our EC neighbours?

The interesting thing is that 70 per cent. of people of working age in our population are in employment, which is higher than the EC average of 58 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State accept that that is unhealthily complacent of the Government? Will she accept that it is not just a waste for individuals but a waste of resources to keep people unemployed, as it costs £8,600 for each person in loss of benefit and taxation? Will the Government introduce schemes that will put people back to work, build up our manufacturing base and help to achieve the Government's own programme of maintaining services and cutting taxes?

There is no complacency in the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the best way to put people out of work is to pursue the sort of policies that he and his hon. Friends supported up to the election. The programmes in place and mounted by my Department, the Employment Service and employment training, are the best possible ways of getting people back to work as quickly as possible. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that two thirds of all the newly unemployed leave unemployment within six months. It is down to the Employment Service to help them to achieve that.

In seeking to create employment opportunities in the United Kingdom and in resisting, rightly, the European "shirking" hours directive, will my right hon. Friend consider using all means at her disposal and will she help the House to defy the European Court if necessary?

As I have already said, the United Kingdom has made it clear from the outset that we resist the directive and consider it to be unjustified. We believe that it will impose liabilities on our labour market that we do not need and do not want. I remind my hon. Friend that it is being brought forward, unjustifiably, under the qualified majority voting procedure. On legal challenge, I rule nothing in and nothing out at this stage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time taken for employment appeal tribunals to deal with cases.

The average length of time taken for a case to reach a hearing by the employment appeal tribunals is four months in Scotland and two years in England and Wales—(Interruption.] Like hon. Members, I am very concerned about the delays in England and Wales and we are taking action to help reduce them.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The Equal Opportunities Commission considered a case against Lloyds Bank. The case was heard in September 1989 and succeeded. Lloyds appealed and there was a hearing in February 1992. The parties are still awaiting the judgment. If, at the end of the day, the Equal Opportunities Commission succeeds, it will not even receive interest on the money to which it is entitled.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on specific cases. However, I agree that such delays and other current delays are unacceptable. We have made arrangements for additional judge time to be made available through my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. We will also be introducing legislative proposals to allow the employment appeal tribunals president to sit alone in certain cases. Also, additional court and administrative staff have been appointed.

Will my hon. Friend remind those who bring cases of their responsibilities? Is he aware that a firm in my constituency has twice within recent years been taken before a tribunal only to find that the appellant did not turn up? Considerable legal costs were incurred by the firm concerned.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on a specific case. It must be in the interests of good industrial relations and good practice if the EAT procedure operates smoothly and effectively. I am sure that there may be something to be learnt from experience north of the border.

If the Minister is going to review the scandalous waiting time of more than two years for appeals, will he consider reverting to what used to happen when people who had been in work for six months were allowed to appeal to an industrial tribunal instead of having to wait until they had been in work for two years? Do that as well.

The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, seems to be confusing two things. The question is on employment appeal tribunals, and I have given an assurance in that respect. He is tempting me to go into a wholly different area—a temptation which I shall resist.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what her policy is towards training and enterprise councils which build up reserves from their block grant.

TECs are able to earn surpluses from increased efficiency. They are required by their contract with us to use such surpluses to further the objectives set out in their corporate and business plans.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that he will agree that, in some parts of the country, training providers experience difficulty in finding the workplace element of YT. They therefore keep trainees in workshops for longer, which costs more. Will he undertake to encourage TECs to recognise the extra costs on training providers, rather than using the money to build up sometimes unnecessarily large reserves?

I have received representations on this matter. The TECs' contracts make clear the priority that is attached to their training objectives. A significant part of their funding relates to trainees' achievements, which is an incentive to invest in improving the quality of their training provision. However, I shall seriously consider my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister aware that engineering training places for young people in Stockport are vacant because High Peak TEC cannot afford to fund them? Does he think that that reflects the Government's failure to provide proper training opportunities for young people and to provide them with the skills that they can invest in industry for the future?

A TEC must consider what is required in its area. I am not aware of the specific problem to which the hon. Lady refers, but I shall consider it. However, TECs are best suited to decide what is required in their area. No one would say that they should provide training places if people do not want to attend such courses.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how she will strengthen the rights of individuals, in the field of employment law, in accordance with citizens charter proposals.

We intend to introduce legislation to give individuals new rights to restrain unlawfully organised industrial action in the public and private sectors. In addition, the legislation will ensure that individuals' consent is required before deductions for trades union subscriptions are made from their pay and will give individuals greater freedom to belong to the union of their choice.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment? In the light of the recent report in the Sunday Mirror, in which the deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees made a statement to the Labour party —"No say, no pay"—does not he think it disgraceful that he should be able to threaten the future employment—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is not relevant to the question on the Order Paper. We shall move on to the next question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for introducing a community work requirement for the payment of unemployment benefit.

We have no such plans.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is she aware that many of the long-term unemployed are layabouts? They should have to do community work before receiving benefit. The taxpayers are sick and tired of financing these layabouts. Will she introduce new legislation so that for every year that these layabouts are on the dole one week's employment benefit is stopped? Will she introduce that legislation, because after the next election the lot opposite are going to be the new long-term unemployed?

The taxpayers have every right to expect good value for money from programmes designed for unemployed people. I should like to reasssure my hon. Friend that we are already providing a wider variety of help than ever before through employment and training programmes to get long-term unemployed people back to work. That includes, of course, help for unemployed people to improve their skills on employment action, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Given that the Treasury today announced that it has revised the estimate of economic growth down to 0.5 per cent., is not the implication that at least 3.5 million real people will be unemployed by Christmas? Will not that be a drain on the nation's resources that none of her schemes will tackle?

What is certain is that if the Labour party had been elected, with its wholly unrealistic economic policies, that total would have been reached and passed.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the particular difficulty of people who left school at 16, went through training and into a job but who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves unemployed? There seems to be a gap in benefits for them.

Entitlement to benefit, as my hon. Friend will know, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but there are special arrangements for young people who find themselves in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments are required to register under the Control of Industrial Major Hazards Regulations 1989.

As at 31 December 1991, a total of 289 establishments had been notified to the Health and Safety Executive as "top-tier" sites under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984.

Will the Minister confirm that such sites could represent the highest potential risk to public safety? Will he also confirm that the Health and Safety Executive has been incredibly dilatory in assessing the real level of risk in those places? Does he intend to communicate directly with the HSE to ensure that a proper assessment is made and that public safety is assured?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct to mention the HSE's diligence in carrying out its duties under the regulations. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments, and he can be sure that the Government will ensure that the HSE carries out its obligations.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate HSE inspectors around the country on their work with hazardous substances in very hazardous circumstances? Are they not worthy of the highest praise, rather than the criticism that we hear too often from the Opposition?

Indeed they are. Most people who come into contact with the HSE and its inspectors are very impressed by the professional way in which they carry out their work.

Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient health and safety inspectors in post to ensure that all the major hazard sites—and, indeed, all the minor hazard sites—are inspected and properly assessed because, as he knows, many small factories are not inspected for many years at a time due to the grave shortage of qualified inspectors? Are the Government going to do something about that?

I go part of the way with the hon. Gentleman. It is right that some of the bigger sites have safety in mind in relation to their responsibilities to the community and to their employees and that care must be taken at some smaller sites. However, I am confident that there are enough inspectors to carry out the work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has any plans to accommodate the special needs of women at work.

I will look at a range of issues relating to the needs of women at work with the help of the new working group which I announced on 20 May.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that almost half the work force in Britain now comprises women and that in many areas of the country the new industries which are replacing the old industries are especially suitable for women? Does she agree with a publication out this week on equal opportunities, which states that women's criteria in working are often quite different from those of men? Women value part-time work and flexibility more than high wages and security of employment. It is, therefore, extremely important that we resist pressure from the European Community to make the conditions of work for men apply to women.

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the report published yesterday by the Institute of Economic Affairs. I have not yet had time to consider that report. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the authors are mostly American and that their experiences and views may well be coloured by the American experience of positive discrimination legislation, which is unlawful in this country. However, I agree that women and men benefit from a flexible labour market and especially from the opportunity of job sharing, and part-time work in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gaviria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the major argument that broke out in Rio de Janeiro last night at the Earth summit between my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), Labour's spokeswoman for overseas development, and Baroness Chalker, the Minister, on the £10 billion decline in the Government's aid programme over the past 13 years? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister told the House last week that over the past 13 years since the fall of the Labour Government, there has been a real increase in overseas aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, he was wrong, he was in error, and had not clone his homework?

I cannot say that I have had a detailed blow-by-blow account of the conversation in Rio last night. What I do know is that underlying my right hon. Friend's statement last week is the fact that we spent more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year—an increase of 4.7 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. Our aid is planned to continue to grow in real terms to almost £2 billion in 1994–95. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that we had cut by half our aid to third-world countries, that our aid has gone up from £727 million to more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new common agricultural policy agreement led by the British Government is advantageous to the British consumer, fair to the British farmer and is likely to break the deadlock at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement is not only very advantageous to this country and to the sensible development of agricultural policies in Europe, since it reduces the burden of the CAP on consumers by £8 billion for the Community as a whole, but it will help to restore the credibility of the Community in the GATT negotiations and will make a settlement of those negotiations, devoutly desired by hon. Members of all parties, more likely.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that since privatisation the number of water cut-offs has trebled, and that in Wales it has increased even further? Is he further aware that since privatisation the salaries and bonuses of water company chairmen have risen by 290 per cent., and that in Wales they have risen by 211 per cent? Is that not a case of Tory policy making the rich richer and the poor poorer? Will the right hon. Gentleman today take the opportunity to condemn the water companies for their actions, and will he put pressure on the authorities to take steps in this regard?

What I am aware of is that, largely as a result of the inaction of the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a waste of precious time.

And—(Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order and hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

And the—[Interruption.]

Order. It is now my turn. Will the House please come to order, so that at least I can hear what the Leader of the House has to say?

What I am aware of is that, as a result of long neglect of water investment under the previous Administration, there has been a considerable need to improve investment in supply and water quality. Since privatisation, the level of water investment has doubled, and it has more than doubled since five years before privatisation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first-ever visit by a serving Prime Minister of this country to any country in South America? Does not our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's choice of Colombia for his first port of call give us an opportunity to endorse our historical, if somewhat neglected, links with that country; to thank it for its support during the Falklands war; and to promote further co-operation in our joint efforts to fight the menace of drug trafficking?

I agree with my hon. Friend. This first-ever visit by a serving British Prime Minister to a South American country is indeed very welcome: it reflects the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend, and provides a further opportunity to enhance the already close co-operation that exists between this country and Colombia in combating the drugs menace.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that information given to newspapers yesterday by the Foreign Office that Britain is attempting to negotiate a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, to prepare the House for a resubmission of the Maastricht Bill?

What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the possibility to which he has referred is clearly one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumstances that have followed the Danish referendum. [Interruption.]

Order.

I was giving the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, a straightforward and clear-cut answer—[Interruption.]

Order.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, it is obviously necessary, following the Danish referendum last week—this is acknowledged on all sides—to look at all possible ways of moving forward in the wake of the Danish decision. What I indicated in the early part of my remarks does no more than confirm that one of the possibilities which can clearly be considered, but without commitment at this stage, is that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

It is indeed a strange Government who are categorical to newspapers on one day and evasive to the House of Commons on the next. Does the Leader of the House understand that the time has gone when progress can be made on the Maastricht Bill by contrivance and manipulation? There are many of us on both sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity—[Interruption.]

Order.

There are many of us on both sides of sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity, who will support progress only of a Bill that is clear, honest and comprehensive and which includes those parts of the treaty most of benefit to the British people, and that specifically includes the social chapter.

There is a slight contrast, I think, between what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us this afternoon and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to tell us yesterday afternoon, which was that he was both for and against the treaty, depending upon what happened in other quarters. The British Government's position is absolutely clear and entirely in line with what I said a few moments ago; that is, that it is necessary, not simply for one country—this one—but for 12, including not least the Danes, to consider the position created by the events of last week and to look at various ways forward from there. That is a sensible policy and it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is a simple, neat and immediate answer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are few less agreeable sights than that of a pack of greedy voyeurs on the make? Will he please convey the good wishes of the House to the Prince and Princess of Wales, our thanks for their past services and hopes for their future happiness?

My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into comment on the stories that have been appearing in the press, but there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will take into account the views of the Press Complaints Commission in his forthcoming review of press self-regulation, which is due to start in July. He will have the support of the whole House in doing precisely that.

To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo on matters relating to article 4 and article 12 of the North Atlantic treaty; and if he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply.

Articles 4 and 12 of the North Atlantic treaty were not discussed. But the North Atlantic Council communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library, made it clear that NATO was prepared to support peacekeeping activities on a case-by-case basis under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

With reference to article 4 of the treaty, and more specifically paragraph 17 of United Nations resolution 757, will the Leader of the House confirm that NATO forces will not be employed in a peacekeeping role in the former republic of Yugoslavia except with the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations which comprise NATO and under the specific command of the United Nations? If such a role is even to be considered, will Her Majesty's Government press the case for the command structure to be European, rather than American-led?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that work is in progress within the alliance to establish precisely how and under what conditions NATO might undertake peacekeeping activity on behalf of or under CSCE auspices. Clearly, the expectation is that such activity would be conducted in consultation with our European partners in that organisation.

Before I call the first speaker, I should say that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House, recognising that the ethnic minorities within British society receive less than their fair share of national resources and remain victims of discrimination and prejudice, calls upon the Government to introduce and implement policies which initially reduce and eventually eliminate the disadvantages which are suffered by these British citizens.

The motion was intended to be uncontroversial between the parties. It contains no criticism of the Government's record or policy. It was drafted in the hope —a vain hope, as it turned out—that the House could unite in unanimous agreement about the need to take immediate, decisive action to reduce discrimination against ethnic minorities. The Government have chosen to table an amendment which manages to be simultaneously pious and partisan. It includes sentiments which sit uncomfortably alongside the statements and speeches made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) during the general election. We shall vote against the amendment because, in our view, the time for platitudes has passed and the time for action has come.

In part, we chose this subject for debate because there is a new Home Secretary. We did so not simply to celebrate his appointment but to express the hope that, at least in this particular, he will do better than his immediate predecessors. It is even possible that we at last have a Conservative Home Secretary—I think, the first for 30 years—who represents a constituency which contains members of the ethnic minority community. If that is the case, he must know the extent of the disadvantage from which these British citizens suffer. It was our hope—it remains our hope, despite the amendment—that he will wish to take action that has previously been neglected but is urgently in the interests of this section of the British public.

I emphasise that the motion, and the debate, concern British citizens who are denied the full rights of British citizenship. The facts are indisputable. We know, at one extreme of the social spectrum, that black defendants are denied bail in circumstances in which it would be granted to white suspects. At the other extreme, we know that highly qualified black and Asian job applicants are rejected for no other reason than their racial origins. These are facts which it is painful to repeat because of what they demonstrate about our society, but, unless we acknowledge the existence of the canker, we will not cut it out, and there is no doubt how great the infection is today.

Parliamentary answers given on 22 May this year demonstrate the extent of one form of discrimination. From 1989 to 1991, the average rate of male unemployment was 8 per cent. For white males, it was 7 per cent. For ethnic minorities, it was almost twice that figure, at 13 per cent. For men of Indian origin, it was 10 per cent. and for Afro-Caribbeans it was 15 per cent. For men of Bangladeshi and Pakistani stock, it was 21 per cent.

That discrepancy in job opportunities did not result from the ethnic minorities being less motivated or less qualified than white workers. The truth is quite the opposite. The Commission for Racial Equality, reporting last month, analysed job seekers in the labour market and said:

"The proportion of ethnic minorities with higher levels of qualification is slightly higher than the proportion of white people."

Yet, for those in this group—the most highly qualified, the group in which ethnic minorities have superior qualifications to their white contemporaries—their prospects of getting a job are exactly the same, that is, about half that of a white man or woman applying for the same post.

I do not believe that the Home Secretary will dispute that description, for the Government have acknowledged the existence of discrimination in employment. In February, they published a 10-point guide which they said would remedy what they coyly described as the

"under representation of the ethnic minorities within the employed population".

Nobody, not even the Government, believes that those guidelines will even scratch the surface of the problem. The question that faces the nation is whether we are prepared for such discrimination to continue or are willing and now ready to initiate decisive action. Timing is vital, because jobs are what the black and Asian British need most. Given a fair chance, given an equal opportunity, they would get their fair share of employment. At the moment, equal opportunity is not available to them.

Highly motivated and unusually talented members of the ethnic minorities fight their way to success, but many of the others are caught in a cycle of double deprivation. They are disadvantaged because they are poor. They are either at the bottom of the earnings league or unemployed. Because of their race and their colour, they are unable to escape from their poverty.

I do not seek to diminish the importance of other policies that are designed to eliminate discrimination. It is, for example, wholly unacceptable, at least to me, that although Catholics, Jews and Quakers can set up denominational schools, Muslims are denied that right. It also seems intolerable to me that some hospitals and some schools do not provide meals that respect the religious needs of their Muslim patients and pupils. However, nothing is so important as providing a chance to escape from poverty, and that requires a radical revision of our employment legislation.

The present law is demonstrably inadequate because it is based on specific complaints by individuals, who have been denied employment or promotion because of their race. The onus should be shifted from isolated actions by victims of discrimination to a general obligation placed on employers. Whether that obligation is fulfilled cannot be calculated in terms of precise numbers. Quotas do not work and will not work, and we do not suggest them as a remedy.

We should require that all employers use their best endeavours to employ a work force who are genuinely representative of their local population. A strengthened Commission for Racial Equality should be empowered to monitor and enforce that process. As the CRE makes clear, that involves monitoring. Unless we know which companies employ a genuine cross-section of the population, we will not be able to ensure a fair distribution of resources.

Ethnic monitoring has already been introduced into employment in parts of the health service, initially, I believe, when the the new Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Health. I therefore assume that that means that the Government are not opposed to ethnic monitoring in principle. Monitoring is essential if the ethnic minorities are to receive their fair share of jobs. I emphasise, because it is crucial to the debate, that it is a fair share of jobs that we demand. We do not ask for that form of positive discrimination that guarantees jobs to those who are not qualified to perform them or provides minorities with more than their proper share of national resources. All we ask is that action be taken to ensure that the black and Asian British receive what is rightly theirs—rightly theirs in terms of civil liberties and national resources.

The Government should and could immediately announce that they will no longer enter into contracts with companies that cannot demonstrate that they operate fair employment policies. That policy of contract compliance, as it is called, is no doubt regarded in some parts of the House as a revolutionary assault on the free market, but in America, which I suppose those same parts of the House still regard as the home and haven of free enterprise, contract compliance by Government agencies is taken for granted.

I have heard much talk of employers needing to choose the best employees available to them. I accept that without qualification, but statistics prove that the best candidate is often rejected because he or she is a member of the ethnic minorities. What is more, discrimination is often the product of ignorance rather than of outright prejudice. I am constantly being told that the black and Asian British are unemployed because they lack the necessary skills to obtain jobs. Again, statistics prove that that is palpable nonsense. The Government should encourage decent employers to search more diligently, and a decent Government would organise carefully targeted training programmes to fill the few gaps in the market that really exist.

Yet the Government, who claim in their amendment a determination to promote a multiracial society, have acted to prevent local councils from insisting that their contractors operate fair employment practices. Birmingham city council instructed its contractors to recruit from the areas in which it was working and have on its payroll a proper racial balance. The Government legislated to make that instruction illegal, as a result of which thousands of jobs were denied to the ethnic minorities in the west midlands.

Let no one suggest that in a free society we cannot impose pressures on employers that prevent them from engaging the employees of their absolute and unfettered choice. I have to tell the Home Secretary—I hope that I shall have the opportunity to tell him on many occasions as the next five years progress—that my Muslim and Sikh constituents are wholly unattracted by a theory of liberty that condemns them permanently to second-class status. If our theory of democracy ignores their basic needs, we should not be surprised if one day they reject our theory of democracy.

We need more positive employment policies because the ethnic minorities need jobs. We also need them to send a message to society. That essential message is easily described. The Government must demonstrate their abhorrence of prejudice and discrimination and their willingness to do more than just talk about such matters and to take action that will bring those evils to an end. The message we need to send out is that the black and Asian British are citizens of this country and should enjoy all the rights and opportunities of that citizenship, not in theory but in practice. I repeat that the platitudes must be replaced by action.

I have absolutely no quarrel with the philosophy that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward—that we must treat all people in this country as equal citizens with equal opportunities. However, having listened carefully to what he said, I have a problem over how exactly he will persuade employers—unless he has some legal or governmental hacking or requirement—to tell the world whether they have the correct number of black or Asian employees compared with other employees unless employers use the criterion that they are now using, which is to employ the person who is best qualified for the job.

The right hon. Lady began her intervention so courteously and supportively that I regret to have to tell her that, although she said that she was listening carefully to what I said, she was clearly not listening carefully enough. I set out and described—I will not bore the House by repeating it—the system of contract compliance which enables, say, the CRE to tell a large company, "We wish to inspect your record to make sure that your payroll is genuinely representative of the area from which you recruit."

I said that that required the ethnic monitoring to which the Home Secretary does not object in principle, since he allowed it at the Department of Health when he was a Minister there. It also requires the CRE to be able to say to a company that is not representative of the area from which it recruits, "Unless you use your best endeavours to recruit members of the ethnic minorities, you will certainly no longer qualify for Government contracts and you will be subject to the penalties that come from breaking the law that specifies fair employment practices." That happens in other countries. It is only because of the peculiar prejudices in this country that it has not been happening here for the last 20 years.

My right hon. Friend has described precisely the problem confronting my local authority in Stoke-on-Trent. It wishes to do what he outlined, but is prevented from doing so because of the lack of legislation.

In my prejudiced way, I cited the example of Birmingham city council as an authority that has wanted to introduce certain policies and been prevented from doing so by the Government. Stoke is another example, and we know of other good local authorities that want to implement fair employment practices but have been prevented from carrying them out by the Government, who have had the nerve to table an amendment of undisguised piety on which we shall be required to vote at 7 o'clock.

The right hon. Gentleman courteously said that he wants this to be a level debate. We should therefore look for ways in which everyone can sort out the problems of racial discrimination. He will know that some changes can be made without legislation. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out that racism needs to be eradicated from the Labour party. Precisely what will the right hon. Gentleman do on behalf of his party to eradicate racism from the party, while the Conservative party looks for ways to encourage the Government to do as much as they can?

I suppose that I might just believe, in a moment of supreme charity, that that comment was intended to be constructive. But a more serious judgment would be that it was characteristically trivial. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I propose to say something worth saying.

The time for platitudes has gone and the time for action has come. The time has gone, too, for the figure manipulation which appears, by implication, in the amendment and which will no doubt be developed by the Home Secretary when he speaks. He draws the attention of the House and, he hopes, the country to the specific grants that have been made available for areas in which ethnic minorities have congregated. He must know that, putting aside those grants—most of them very small and all of them introduced with enormous fanfares—the loss of funds going into inner cities has been enormous and overwhelming because of the reduction of central Government general grant to local authorities.

As a result of that reduction, housing in central areas has deteriorated. School buildings have deteriorated and education committees have been unable to recruit extra teachers to teach English as a second language. Amenities in central areas have also deteriorated. The idea that the Government have put money at the disposal of local authorities that want to help in those matters is not simply untrue but the diametric opposite of the truth.

The Government must decide in the next five years—I hope that they will feel calmer about making a decision in the knowledge that the general election is behind them —whether they believe in a multiracial society. In such a society, diversity is welcomed, not merely tolerated, and the culture, customs and religions of minority groups are respected. In such a society, laws accommodate minority religions and mores. Above all else, a multiracial society does not treat minorities as a problem.

Nothing has done so much harm to community relations in this country as the idea encouraged, I fear, by Government policies, that black and Asian British are a liability. They are not. The idea that ethnic minorities are a problem, with all its damaging results, has been encouraged by successive Home Secretaries. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was civilised, patrician and courteous about it. The Lord Waddington was not. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley saw it as a political opportunity. However, in their different ways, each fostered the disastrous notion that black and Asian British were such a detriment to society that the Government must use every power at their disposal to prevent any more of them from entering the country, whatever their legitimate claim for entry.

I believe quite the opposite because of my experience. I spend much of my time on the Stratford road in the Birmingham constituency of Sparkbrook and I see how that road has been rehabilitated by the ethnic minorities: the shops are Asian; the restaurants are Kashmiri; the banks are Indian and Pakistani. They have rebuilt that heart in the centre of the community. Anyone who thinks that their entry into Birmingham is anything but an advantage is guided by pure, blind prejudice.

I hope that there can be more positive understanding of that contribution. It must be related to our attitude towards immigration. These days when we speak of immigration we mean a process that is directly relevant to the lives of British citizens living in Britain. Primary immigration, whether or not it was right in the dying days of the empire, is now over for ever. The argument about immigration now involves British citizens living in Britain— the right of wives to be reunited with their husbands and the right of British citizens to be visited by their friends and relations—a right which is still too often denied to the black and Asian British.

One of my constituents is, on the evidence of a great national hospital, dying of cancer. His son has been refused permission to visit him as the immigration service, while accepting the diagnosis—it could hardly have done otherwise—doubts the son's motives for wishing to visit this country. I do not believe that that man would have been excluded from this country had he been white, and I fear that the figures confirm that unhappy conclusion. Last year, one Canadian out of every 4,219 applicants was refused a visitor's permit, whereas one in 32 Jamaicans was refused a temporary visa. The difference was not in the applicants' intentions but in the reaction of the immigration service.

If the Home Secretary truly intended to implement the high hopes of his amendment, he would send an immediate message to the immigration service, particularly those members serving in posts abroad. He would tell them that the Government do not expect them to use every means at their disposal to refuse application for entry, whatever the merits of the application. I have no doubt that the service believes that the present Government expect it positively to look for reasons why visa applications should be refused. That is the tone set by previous Home Secretaries, and by the Government appealing against a tribunal decision that judged a man to be improperly excluded. That impression was also given by the tone and character of the speeches made by the previous Home Secretary. The main reason for this debate is that the present Home Secretary has an opportunity to make it clear that he expects genuine applicants to be allowed entry into this country. I hope that he will say that in exact terms this afternoon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case highlighted in The Independent of a citizen from the United States who came over here? There was no reason to suspect that he was other than a visitor; he was employed in the United States, where he had status and a home. However, he was refused entry and accused of being associated with the recent disturbances in America. There was no reason to disbelieve what he said, as he went out of the way to publicise his position. One can only conclude—as one of our former colleagues did in a letter to The Independent—that the man was refused entry because of his colour and had he been white there would have been absolutely no problem.

The problem with such examples is that they are all too frequent and we can all add to them. I shall take this opportunity to give another even more extraordinary example. A professor of economics who had been lecturing in Germany was flying back to Canada. On the aeroplane he met another professor of economics from this country. The English professor told him that he had a PhD student who specialised in a subject on which the Canadian professor had given his lecture.

The Canadian professor was persuaded to get off the aircraft at Heathrow to talk to the PhD student. The professor was immediately arrested, retained at Heathrow for two days and put on an aeroplane back to Canada. All the information about the professor's qualifications was available, but unfortunately he was black. It gives me no pleasure, but only regret, to state that had the professor been a white Canadian, that would not have happened to him.

I asked the Home Secretary to send a message to his officials, and I should like to hear him send a message to the rest of the public service, that its members should give equal treatment to all. We know—the evidence is depressingly extensive—that in social security offices all over Britain, black and Asian British are asked to prove their entitlement to benefit, whereas members of the majority community are not asked to do so. Evidence can also be provided to show that some officers refuse to issue national insurance numbers to members of ethnic minorities about to enter the labour market until they can prove that they are British by birth or registration. We believe that such practices are intolerable.

The Government should also make it clear that public housing must not be allocated according to rules that in any way discriminate against one group in society. The Liberal council in Tower Hamlets simply refused to rehouse Bangladeshi residents and its action was ruled unlawful in the High Court. No doubt later in the debate we shall hear that council action condemned. Some councils still have qualifying regulations which, by coincidence or by design, discriminate against minorities. Such regulations should be prohibited by law.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tower Hamlets council recently started to ask applicants who arrived at the homeless persons unit to prove their immigration status, thereby acting illegally as an immigration authority?

That will have to be the final intervention, because many hon. Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the general point that there is a tendency by officialdom when confronted with a black, brown or yellow face to suspect that the person is not a genuine British citizen and to require him to prove his status. That should be prevented by law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the general election campaign some members of the Asian community in Rochdale were threatened and intimidated by some members of the Labour party? In one case, a man who was canvassing for the Liberal Democrats was told by a member of the Labour party that he would lose his grant unless he stopped such canvassing.

If that happened, I condemn it without qualification. I say "If it happened." I have named the Liberal council that discriminated openly and unlawfully against Bangladeshis and I hope that the hon. Lady or a more senior member of her party will condemn that action that she has described.

rose—

I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again, as I want to make some progress.

There are still qualifying regulations in all areas which are imposed to require the black and Asian British to prove their status. That is wholly intolerable. The Government's belief that anything is justified in the name of immigration control was illustrated by one of the meanest acts in the history of British administration. Four years ago, some children who had been denied entry to this country, because the Government did not accept that they were related as claimed, proved through DNA tests that the Government were wrong. Those children who were still under 18 when the Government were confounded were allowed to enter Britain as the law required. However, the young men and women who had passed that age—the age at which admission is normally agreed—while undergoing the DNA tests to prove that the Government were in error were denied entry.

The only conclusion to be drawn from such petty tyranny is that the Government believe that they must keep the numbers down at all costs, irrespective of the device that is necessary to achieve that aim. That attitude sends quite the wrong signals to the ethnic minorities and to the wider population.

The second and even more damaging illustration of the official attitude to ethnic minorities concerns the reunion of husbands and wives. The immense suffering caused by that policy is, I fear, the product of the Government's failure to understand that marriage may be contracted in a variety of ways and still be lawful. In the official mind, the arranged marriage is confused with a bogus marriage. In a proper multiracial society the law would be able to accommodate marriage customs based on a variety of traditions.

The primary-purpose rule by which applicants who wish to join their wives in Britain are judged is intellectually absurd and morally indefensible. A woman with British citizenship, who theoretically enjoys all the rights that such citizenship provides, is denied the right to live in this country with her lawful husband if, in the opinion of an immigration officer, the man's real object of coming here is to live in Great Britain. Simply stated, the immigration officer has the right in law to read an applicant's mind. Having formed a subjective opinion, the immigration authorities will allow entry only if on appeal the applicant can prove that the immigration officer misjudged and misread his mind. Normally and, I fear, intentionally that is an impossible task.

The case history of this provision shows how squalid the process has become. I have read case note after case note and they all read in a similar way. The applicant is asked his opinion of the United Kingdom. He answers, no doubt with the hope of ingratiating himself with the officer, that he has always admired the United Kingdom and always wanted to live here. On the evidence of that answer it is judged that he contracted the marriage only to enable him to live and work in the United Kingdom, and a legitimate and genuine marriage is separated, almost for ever. I emphasise that the marriages of which I speak are genuine. They have been contracted in ways to which hon. Members are not accustomed. However, it is the obligation of a multiracial society to accept and allow in law the mores of the minorites, rather than impose upon them the will and wishes of the majority. The genuine nature of the marriages is often demonstrated by years of separation and devotion.

Six months ago I proposed that the primary-purpose rule should he replaced by a more objective test of a marriage's genuine status. One of the criteria against which I wanted applicants to be judged was the constancy of the partners. I have constituents who were married five or six years ago. The husbands have been forced to remain in Pakistan and have seen their wives during a couple of brief holidays since the wedding. The wives have given birth to one or two children. The husbands have supported their families as best they can with remittances. Yet, the immigration service persists in saying that those couples are not genuinely married.

In the judgment in Kumar, the High Court required the Government to take into account what is described as intervening devotion. Some married couples have been reunited by taking the Government to court, obtaining judicial review and being brought together because of the judgment in Kumar. That is a long and often expensive process. It is time that the Government accepted that judgment from the beginning and applied it to all applicants who want to come and remain in this country.

The European Court is now considering a second specific case—the application of Mr. Surinder Singh. If, as is widely assumed, it finds in his favour, it will be possible for a British citizen whose spouse has been denied entry into Great Britain to live with his wife or her husband for a brief period in France or Germany and then move, without let or hindrance, into the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that already an English woman of Kashmiri origin can move to Paris or Rome and use Community law to be reunited with her husband from Pakistan immediately and without any qualification. If, as seems likely. Europe is to make nonsense of the primary-purpose rule, it would be to the Government's credit to take the initiative and do away with the dreadful thing immediately.

It is worth noting that the treatment thought appropriate to British women who marry foreign husbands is regarded by the European Community as unacceptable for citizens of other European countries. Britain is required to treat Community nationals better than we treat our own people. A French woman living in London who marries a citizen of what was once a French colony has the automatic and unfettered right to be joined in this country by her Moroccan or Algerian husband. A British woman does not have the same right to be joined in Britain by a Kenyan, Kashmiri or Indian husband. That is absurd as well as shameful. Nothing would so enhance the Home Secretary's reputation than for him to say today that he will bring that absurd shame to an immediate end.

The defence of the primary-purpose rule is that to replace it with objective criteria would result in some bogus marriages slipping through the net and, although it is rarely admitted, 100, 200 or 300 more young men would thus be allowed into this country. I make my position clear. The Government are so obsessed with keeping the wrong applicants out that they are always casual and sometimes callous about making sure that the right applicants get in. I am certainly prepared to accept the increase in numbers that would be involved in genuine marriages being reunited in this country in the way that they should be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I suspect, forgets that the general election is over. Nevertheless, I shall let him make his point about numbers.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and grateful to be here after the election. Will he clarify how he works out the figure of 300 extra people coming here if we abolish the primary-purpose rule? That is humbug. Perhaps he remembers that on 5 April, before the election, The People issued an Asian edition and an English one. The front page of the Asian issue was plastered with the right hon. Gentleman's promises. He promised everything under the sun, including abolition of the primary-purpose rule. The English edition did not mention a word. Does not that show that the right hon. Gentleman has no answers and is trying to give different messages to different audiences?

I am open to all sorts of accusations this afternoon, one of which is going on for too long, but the accusation that I have been trying to hide the immigration policies that I support seems difficult to sustain. I believe, and the hon. Gentleman can put it in his election manifesto in four or five years' time, that we must allow the entry of those men who are genuinely married and are genuinely separated from wives with whom they should be reunited. If that involves an increase in numbers, so be it. That is the necessity and obligation of a civilised society.

The test that the Government now face is their real belief in a multiracial society and, in consequence, their real belief in freedom. Sometimes, the ethnic minorities will wish to behave in a way that the majority population finds unnatural and uncomfortable. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise, for that is the nature of the multiracial society. I, for instance, am not an enthusiast for single-sex schools or for religious schools. I do not like the idea of single-sex secondary education or religious-based secondary education. The question is not whether we as individuals like or dislike a proposal but whether we are prepared to allow members of minorities to make decisions for themselves and to run their lives according to their traditions, religions and mores, as long as in doing so they do not damage the interests of the community as a whole.

I fear that our willingness to allow that freedom to ethnic minorities is singularly absent from Government policy. I fear that we have neglected the interests of those citizens in a way that is to this country's shame and may, over the years, rebound enormously to our practical and material disadvantage.

The motion demands that we accept that the black and Asian British are what they are—full and equal citizens of the United Kingdom, with all the rights that that implies and the share of resources that it should provide for them. Labour Members will go on proclaiming the necessity to change policy until that desirable situation is genuinely and fully brought about.

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

"commends the Government's determination to work towards a multi-racial society, to which all ethnic minority communities contribute fully and in which all enjoy equal opportunities, as evidenced by their policies for tackling racial discrimination and disadvantage and for promoting equal opportunities, and by expenditure programmes directed at the special needs of ethnic minorities."

I am open to correction in my understanding of the timing of these matters, but I think that I am right in saying that this may be the last appearance at the Dispatch Box of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He shakes his head. I look forward to debating with him again. The world will change when that moment comes, because for as long as I have been a Member I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman make a speech from the Back Benches; he has always been a Front Bencher. I therefore thought that he might have planned his swansong on this subject, and I was going to pay tribute to him. If he is now promising me an onslaught on another subject in the near future, I will gladly give way to him.

I was hoping that the Home Secretary would confirm that he will withdraw the representation of the people legislation that we are due to debate on Monday, when I hoped to debate with him again.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of that, which at least will be a more partisan discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly began by saying that I had puzzled over the motion before the House and wondered why he was raising ethnic minority issues when I thought that it might be his last speech, forgetting next Monday. I am now reassured that he wishes to make a speech on a matter about which he holds strong views, which, in principle, are not removed from mine.

The right hon. Gentleman is fairly critical of the fact that I thought his motion was partisan and therefore tabled an amendment to it. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman, probably like myself, does not have a non-partisan reputation in the House. He may think that his motion was disingenuous and a statement of the obvious, but I shall seek to persuade him and the House that, whatever problems may face the ethnic minorities, it is not true that they receive less than their fair share of national resources. The House must correct that notion. It is not altogether non-partisan to call on the Government to introduce and implement policies to eliminate the disadvantages of such citizens because the implication is that we have not already been doing that vigorously.

I shall seek to persuade the right hon. Gentleman and the House that not only is the Government amendment not merely a platitude—as he said—because its sentiments are eminently fair, but that it is a more accurate statement of the position because it commends the Government and congratulates them on what they are doing and on having such forceful policies to tackle racial discrimination and disadvantage.

Nevertheless, it is important that we begin by putting on record what has not always been put on record either by the right hon. Gentleman or by other members of the Opposition. Hon. Members of all political persuasions are by and large agreed on the principles that should govern a multiracial, multicultural society. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I frequently face attacks, from Labour politicians in particular, suggesting that the Government's policies are racially motivated and that we discriminate in the policies that we adopt, but that is not the case. When that is said in the heat of political debate, it does not do the slightest good to race relations by encouraging that belief among ethnic minority constituents.

I think that the House agrees overwhelmingly on what should happen in a society such as ours. It should be acknowledged that we are talking about ways and means because we all agree that platitudes are not enough and that action is called for, as the right hon. Gentleman says. The Government's aim is to have a fair and integrated multiracial society. We are determined to stamp out racial discrimination so that all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, can have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. We are prepared to debate the methods by which we achieve that, and that is what this debate should be about.

The Secretary of State will agree that it is most important to reconcile deeds with words, so will he reflect on the reduction of section 11 funding which has afflicted many parts of the country, including Bradford, and which has clearly adversely affected the disadvantaged, especially the ethnic minorities? Has he any plans to restore or, indeed, to increase the funding so that local authorities such as mine can actively assist ethnic minority communities?

If I may, I shall deal more fully with section 11 later if I do not succumb to the same temptation as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and give way too often. The total amount of section 11 funding has not been reduced, if one leaves aside an exceptional payment to clear some old ILEA claims, which was made, I think, two years ago. It is difficult to distribute the funding, but we have taken steps to target it better. I shall return to that matter in due course.

Let me deal with one or two issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised with regard to specific actions. I do not want to spend too long on asylum and immigration matters because we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss them this Session when the Asylum Bill reappears before the House, which it will do shortly. [Interruption.] It will shortly, and the reason is not that which I heard the right hon. Gentleman give the other day. It is because we have a longer Session ahead of us and after the election we are taking a look at asylum and immigration matters to ensure that when we reintroduce the Bill we have the opportunity to tackle all the deficiencies in the immigration and asylum system. We are also reflecting a little on some debates, especially those in another place.

I confirm that the guiding principle in dealing with immigration cases is that genuine cases whom this country is happy to admit, whether under the terms of our international obligations towards refugees or of our obligations to those who are entitled to come to this country as dependants, should be admitted. I should like them to be admitted in a more straightforward and less protracted way than is sometimes the case at present as a result of delays in the system which are inflicted on us by dealing with many less well-founded cases of people who are undoubtedly not entitled to come to this country. We must, therefore, examine the system to ensure that it is effective and fair, that it delivers prompter decisions, thereby enabling us to deal properly with those whom we are happy to welcome to our shores, and that it deals fairly within the rule of law with those whom we are not happy to welcome.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I will give way just twice more, after which, as I said that I would not talk about immigration, I will not give way again. We shall otherwise spend the whole time on the subject.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the delay in the introduction of the Asylum Bill is causing some concern to Conservative Members, despite the spurious objections by the Opposition? Will he confirm that the delay does not mean that the situation is worsening, and that it is actually rather better than it was when the Bill was introduced before the general election? Will he also confirm that he is confident that, when the Bill comes to the House, the situation will be more under control than it was in the earlier part of the year?

The situation is slightly better than it was when the Bill was introduced because the number of applicants has come down. However, that cannot be relied on and the Bill's provisions are still required. There will be no great delay; the Bill will be reintroduced. We are wholly committed to the policies we enunciated in the Bill before the election and we are taking the opportunity to look a little more widely to sec what other causes of delay in the system can be tackled when the Bill is reintroduced. I assure my hon. Friend and most people interested in seeing our obligations under the convention carried out properly that we propose to introduce a Bill that will enable us to deal more promptly with those who are entitled to asylum here, and to reject more clearly and more quickly those who are not. That is in everyone's interests, and that principle could be, and properly should be, applied across the area of applications for immigration and settlement.

Does the Home Secretary agree with the general principle put forward by the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary and introduced the Immigration Bill? He said that good race relations in Britain depended on the maintenance of very strict and oppressive immigration controls. Does the Home Secretary also agree with the statement of his right hon. Friend on that occasion that the immigration service was providing a good customer service?

I am absolutely certain that a slight misquotation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took place there. My views on the matter and those of my right hon. Friend are almost identical. I believe that good race relations in this country depend on, the maintenance of a strict system of immigration control. They most definitely do not depend on an oppressive system. Reform, such as the Asylum Bill, is required to ensure that the system is not oppressive to the genuine cases because it is unable to cope with the non-genuine. That is the purpose of the reform.

I believe that the immigration service provides a good service. The difficulty in the House when individual cases are cited, as we experienced a few minutes ago, is that it is not the way to approach the whole question of immigration policy. There is a system, which we seek to improve, under which there are prompt appeal hearings for the cases that will, undoubtedly, go wrong. However. newspaper accounts and partial accounts by people who have been turned away of why they believe they were turned away often prove to he incorrect.

The case quoted by the hon. Member for Walsall. North (Mr. Winnick) was answered by the head of the immigration service. The account of it in the newspapers was very partial and was given by a man who arrived with a huge collection of belongings, including his own car, for what he said was a short business visit.

Do I take it that the Home Secretary studied the whole case? I recognise that the Home Secretary and his Ministers cannot study individual cases all the time, and I do not suggest that they should do so. However, in view of the publicity that the case received and the way in which the response came from the immigration service, may I take it that all the papers were looked at, if not by the Home Secretary, by his Ministers? There remains a good deal of disquiet, not only about this case, but about others such as that quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). There is a feeling that not all people are treated alike and that the question of colour comes into it.

I can confirm that the case was examined very closely, because of the nature of the allegations. No Minister or member of the immigration service would accept a system of immigration control that worked unfairly and discriminately against someone purely because of that person's colour. That had been alleged, with the result that the case was examined carefully not only by the head of the immigration department but by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill (Mr. Wardle), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who now handles such matters and who took a close interest in the affair. I also considered it, to a slightly lesser extent; I kept in touch with my hon. Friend.

We were entirely satisfied with the explanation that was given. If it is still contested, it will be open to the applicant to appeal. It is not helpful, however, to try to pour abuse on the whole system, relying on partial newspaper stories supplied by a journalist who listens to what the complainant says, but is not prepared to listen to explanations. We shall present legislation that will be fair to the genuine applicant—fair to everyone, indeed—but the system will be governed by the rule of law. We shall seek to get rid of the delays, the legalisms and some of the wilder allegations.

The primary-purpose rule is subject to litigation at present, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has said. I know that he has always felt strongly about the issue, but I do not agree with what he said about the logic of the case. He challenged me to produce a logical justification. In my opinion, arguments about whether marriages are bogus are, to an extent, immaterial. It is not for me, or for any other Minister in this or any other Government, to express views about whether arranged marriages are a good or a bad thing; we all have our views on that, but it is not what lies behind the rule. People are free to marry for whatever reason they choose. In my experience, people have married for a variety of reasons, not all of which have struck me as frightfully good—but that is the ultimate civil liberty, which is available to everyone regardless of background.

It is perfectly logical for a country or a Parliament to object if two people from different countries marry and the main reason for the marriage—there may, of course, be others—has nothing to do with romantic or family attachment. If the marriage is intended to enable a man who otherwise would not be allowed to live here to enter the country for that purpose, surely there is nothing illogical in telling that man, "Of course you are free to marry, but that does not necessarily allow you to get around immigration controls that should apply to you."

We can argue about individual cases. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, for instance, has said that he knows of cases in which the wrong decision was made. The argument, however, does not apply only to Indian men and arranged marriages; there are also the so-called mail-order brides, south-east Asian women who marry Englishmen. I do not consider it illogical to introduce a rule that allows people to enter into such marriages if they wish to do so, but makes it clear that it is not necessarily just for immigration rules to be "collapsed" so that someone whose principal purpose in marrying is to get around the immigration rules can gain admission. We shall wait to find out what the litigation produces, but I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's strong views in this regard.

I assure the Home Secretary that there is no disagreement between us on one point. Anyone who marries simply in order to get into this country does not qualify for entry; the logical debate concerns how it is decided what the reason for the marriage was. What I have asked the Home Secretary to defend, in logic, is a system that allows one human being to judge the mind of another on wholly subjective evidence-not on the evidence presented to him, as I think the Minister is now pointing out, but on his own subjective judgment.

As the Home Secretary clearly wishes to dispute such points of logic, will he explain the justice, as well as the rationality, of an immigration service that allows a Frenchwoman living in this country to bring in her Madagascan husband, but does not allow an Englishwoman living in this country to bring in her Pakistani husband? How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman possibly justify that?

Let me deal with the first question. [Interruption.] The second is an anomaly—the first is easier to deal with—and does not derive from our rules.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was close to agreeing with me. We are discussing whether a person has an overwhelming human right to come here—I paraphrase slightly, but this is not a court of law—if his main reason for marrying is to get around the immigration rules. There may be subsidiary reasons, but the main reason—they would not have married except for the fact—is that one wanted to remain here. That is the logical argument for the rules. The right hon. Gentleman was saying that there was no logical argument, and then he asked, "How do you judge that without trying to get into somebody's mind?" Throughout the system of law and administration, trying on the evidence to judge somebody else's state of mind frequently has to be subjective.

For example, let us consider the case of someone who says that he is coming here as a visitor. He may have some other reason for coming here. A person who asserts that he is coming here as a visitor is sometimes refused because, on the evidence available and in all the circumstances, the immigration officer says, "No. This chap may be coming here partly because he wants to visit English cathedrals or partly because he wants to visit his sick mother, but his main reason is that he does not want to go back when he is finished doing those things. He wishes to come here and settle."

Nobody has ever argued that cases such as that should be refused. All such cases involve difficult judgments about what is someone's intention, in all the circumstances, not just what they say that their intentions are. That is why it is a sensitive matter in which we have to construct careful legislation and have an appeals system, which is what we should be talking about.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have already given way far more often on immigration and the primary-purpose rule than I said I would.

Going back to the first and most difficult issue, many points were raised. I reassert that, in the other matters to which I shall refer and steadily work through, my main aim in respect of race relations will be to build upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the second point?"] I obviously look forward to an enlivening and—

rose—

Order. Hon. Members know quite well that, if a Minister does not give way, hon. Members must resume their seat.

I look forward to further debates on immigration. They will obviously be lively, but they make progress. In the past half hour, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has conceded that there is logic in the policy behind the primary-purpose rule, and he has at least stepped back to his second point—his lesser point, in my opinion—which is on the difficulties of applying it. We shall return to that matter in due course. We have agreed that the aim in this aspect of race relations is to build upon, help to strengthen further—

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may assist you and the House to know that our concern is that the Home Secretary has failed to answer the second part of a two-part question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Will the Home Secretary now deal with the matter of a British woman seeking—

Order. The Chair cannot judge how satisfactory a Minister's answers might be, otherwise our proceedings would be endless.

Given that, on the first point, the Opposition have been bowled middle stump, they seem to be extremely anxious to try to scratch around for another one which they know perfectly well derives from Community law and not from British law. I do not think that most of the Opposition would wish to fall in line with French or Community practice in many of those race relations matters. They know perfectly well that British race relations law—British immigration law, I dare say —is superior in almost all respects to that on the continent.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No; I must move on.

rose—

No; I am moving on. The hon. Gentleman may ask me a question some other time, but I am moving on.

Will the Home Secretary please give way?

On the question that was—

Order. Secretary of State, would you resume your seat while I am standing, please? I have very recently made the point that if a Minister, or indeed any other hon. Member who has the floor, does not give way, it is his or her right so to do.

I apologise for not sitting down, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your rising is the only thing that gets the hon. Member for Wolverhampon, South-East (Mr. Turner) to sit down.

The question of Muslim schools was also raised. It is simply not the case that education policy in any way discriminates against Muslim schools—of course it does not. I shall explain exactly what the position is. Voluntary-aided schools exist for denominational, confessional education. It is open to anyone who has such a school to maintain it and to anyone to apply to open a new one. In my opinion— I am sure that my opinion is indistinguishable from that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who speaks on education for the Opposition—it is right that we should defend the right of parents who wish to have access to denominational education, if it can be provided, be they Roman Catholic, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim or of any other religious denomination. That is applied throughout Britain, regardless of religious confession.

It is difficult to open a new voluntary-aided school because of the rules which are applied to all such schools. There have been two Muslim applications in recent years. One was withdrawn. The only one that was turned down was the Islamia school in Brent in north London. It was turned down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who was Secretary of State for Education and Science before me. The criterion applied to that school were exactly the same as those applied to any other school.

The first criteria is whether the school will follow the national curriculum. We must be candid. That is a question that has to be asked in a fair number of the Muslim applications. Although it does not apply to the Brent school, private Muslim schools have sailed near to teaching the female pupils domestic science, Koranic studies and not a lot of other things which should be taught under the national curriculum. It is not discriminatory to insist that the national curriculum should be applied.

Obviously, the usual judgments are made about whether the school is well run, but the key criterion is whether there is a demand for places in the education authority. For schools of all denominations it has been the practice of the Department of Education for many years to turn down applications for new school places, which would cause an extra burden on public funds and create extra school places, in boroughs or counties where there is already a surplus, which in some cases the local authority is trying to tackle. That is where the Islamia school went down. I will not say any more about it, because it is subject to litigation. I have missed it because the decision was taken before my time and the matter has been before the courts ever since. I have no doubt that my successor is contemplating the advice of the judges to look at the matter again.

I know for a fact that the decision of my predecessor was not based on any rule which he would not apply to a Jewish, Catholic or Anglican school. We are talking about the relevance of the surplus places argument in the application for the Islamia school.