To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people entered a scheme on leaving school in 1992; what was the equivalent figure in 1979; and if she will make a statement.

The 270,000 young people starting youth training in 1992–93 all received training. Fewer than a quarter of the 162,000 starting on the youth opportunities programme in 1978–79 received training.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she assure me that she will continue to develop training policy to benefit the individual, rather than follow the advice of the Labour party, which is based on the social chapter and a national minimum wage but which would have a devastating consequence for our job prospects?

No doubt hon. Friend has noted that the number of unemployed young people in Britain is far below the EC average and that the opportunities that we offer under youth training, and in particular under youth credits, which we are extending into his constituency, give young people a very good start.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in the long history of silly, planted questions, that one must take the prize with additional awards? What matters to school leavers is not the number of training places, so many of which are of dubious value and do not lead to jobs, but the number of jobs and of proper apprenticeships. Will she confirm that they were much more abundant under the Labour Government of the 1970s than now? If she can cast her mind back further to the heady days of the Labour Government of the 1960s, will she confirm that the problem for school leavers was the abundant choice of jobs?

Young people and others certainly want jobs and want their training to lead to jobs, but it is extraordinary for the hon. Gentleman to assert that Conservative Members do not understand that point when Labour Members, with their support for a national minimum wage and for the provisions of the social chapter and their hostility to employers, never cease to show that they do not understand the point.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that more than 300,000 young people are now on youth training schemes, and only just over 5,000 youngsters are waiting barely eight weeks to get on to a scheme.

In the past year, we experienced some problems with young people waiting longer than that. The Department therefore waged an intensive campaign to reduce that waiting time. Thanks to some full and frank discussions that I had with certain training and enterprise councils, we have now reached the figure that my hon. Friend gave, which is a great improvement on earlier figures. I will not rest until we have improved it still further.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received about companies planning to lower wages when the wages council for their industry has been abolished.

One person has written to me.

Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of employers have already cut pay below wages council rates? A laundry worker in my constituency is paid £2·98p an hour and has been threatened with a reduction in his pay. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister to advise foreign laundry firms to come to Britain and to take British laundry workers to the cleaners?

The hon. Lady's constituent wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me some time ago about this matter. From memory, I think that he did so in December, when he was advised, if he had a complaint, to approach the wages inspectorate. He has not done so, but I should have thought that that was the proper avenue to pursue the matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of wages councils will create jobs—[Interruption.]—and is that not better than destroying jobs, which is what a national minimum wage will do?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Spanish socialists are presiding over twice the level of unemployment that we have because they embraced the minimum wage policy. I do not know what Labour Members are jeering about, because their party will not commit itself to bringing back wages councils after the House has abolished them. When pressed on the matter, it does not know, just as it does not know about a range of other issues—from British Rail, to Maastricht and one member, one vote. It is a party which is making a virtue out of agnosticism.

Why, in order to retain their jobs, must the low paid take cuts in wages, whereas, in order to retain their jobs, ex-con company directors must take huge salary increases, pension rights and share options?

We have never argued that the abolition of wages councils would necessarily result in a reduction in wage levels. When the Labour Government abolished 11 wages councils, wages did not go up. When the Conservative Government took people under the age of 21 out of the scope of wages councils, wages went up by two fifths and employment increased considerably among young people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has on the extent of off-the-job training in the south-east.

More than 700,000 employees in London and the south-east have received off-the-job training since last autumn.

Is it not the case that only three quarters of firms in the south-east are providing off-the-job training for their employees, and that in 1992 it averaged about two days per employee? Is that not a very poor record compared with that of many other European countries? Is it not also the case that the voluntary provision of training is failing, and that we need to require employers to provide appropriate training for their employees?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. One of the interesting things that have happened is that training has held up despite the difficulties facing firms as a result of the recession. We shall not take any lectures on the importance of training from a party that has consistently opposed employment training and youth training, no doubt at the behest of its trade union paymasters.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his determination to increase the number of people taking job-related training? Will he confirm that, in the south-east in particular, manufacturing firms expect to increase their training budgets, or at least to keep them at the same level? Surely that is the way to proceed. Does he agree that we must have more training, and that manufacturing firms in the south-east are proving that they believe in training and are determined to invest in the future?

I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. He is right to emphasise the importance of raising the skill levels in the work force if we are to compete with countries from the Pacific rim, Japan and others, which are the key to prosperity. That is why it is so important that the private sector itself takes the initiative, why we are promoting Investors in People and why we reject the state-imposed regimes which Labour Members favour but which would add to industry's lack of competitiveness in Europe.

The Minister mentioned the Investors in People programme. Has not it been a dismal failure, although it gives us no satisfaction to say it? Is it not the case that less than a third of the 10,000 whom it was hoped would sign up have done so? Is it not the truth that, despite what the Minister said, during the recession training decreased in the private sector? Have not the Government cut their training budget? Now that we know there is to be a round of public expenditure cuts, will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us whether the Department of Employment will once again sacrifice its training budget and the nation's needs when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does his work?

Could we just for once hear an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman welcoming good news for Britain? The Investors In People programme covers 250,000 employees, and many organisations are committing themselves to it. Instead of running down Investors In People, why does not the hon. Gentleman join the Government and everyone else who wishes this country well, and encourage people to take advantage of that excellent scheme?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the target for job placements by the Employment Service during the most recent three months available; and what was the actual performance.

The Employment Service placed 1·42 million unemployed people into work in 1992–93.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the Employment Service has been especially successful in placing the long-term unemployed in work, and the fact that the restart interview scheme has played an important part in that assistance, and also in eliminating benefit fraud?

The record of the Employment Service at this difficult time has certainly been excellent. Not only has it met its target, but in some cases has exceeded it. The target for the coming year is for the service to place some 1·47 million unemployed people back in work, and I am confident that it will do so. Last year, the Employment Service also placed some one third of a million long-term unemployed people back into work, and that, too, was an excellent achievement.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether any of those job placements included the recruitment of long-term unemployed people to cross picket lines at Timex in Dundee? Rather than setting the unemployed and the employed at one another's throats, surely the Government's time would be better spent in legislating to provide the same legal protection for workers taking industrial action in this country as is available for workers everywhere else in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman must know that employees who choose to go on strike have always risked dismissal. I hope that he will join my hon. Friends and myself in condemning the unacceptable violence demon-strated on the picket lines in Dundee.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the success that the Employment Service is delivering is such that virtually every, or even every, unemployed person has the opportunity to attend a restart interview? Is not the Employment Service getting record numbers back into work?

Certainly the Employment Service has never done a better job in reaching its targets. We also have more opportunities in training, in reskilling and in employment measures—1·6 million in all—than we have ever had to help unemployed people back into jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received on employer-provided training in the north-west.

None.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Normidtec training and enterprise council, which covers my constituency, recently held a special needs awareness week, to try to promote training opportunities for the disabled members of our community? Will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that disabled members of the community have access to high-level training and to good jobs?

I know about the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As I understand it, he, too, supports it, and I congratulate him on that. We are encouraging the TECs to identify what is needed locally, and we are giving vast assistance and support, through financial arrangements, to the TEC movement across the country.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that 250 organisations, including many household names employing more than 250,000 people, are already recognised as having achieved the standards specified in Investors In People, and the fact that about 3,000 organisations, including many more national and international companies, and many companies in the north-west, are working closely with their local training and enterprise councils on the programme?

I can confirm those figures, and I am rather sorry that the Opposition seem to talk them down. Investors In People is important, and a number of household names have now signed up to committing themselves to the programme. As my hon. Friend says, more than 250 organisations have already achieved the target, and more than 3,000 have made a formal commitment to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what fresh initiatives she plans to take to increase employment opportunities for young people.

Youth credits are helping increasing numbers of school leavers to acquire the skills businesses need.

As one who worked with young people for many years before entering this place, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that a job and the hope of a job are crucial not only to young people themselves, but to the health of the whole community? Does not the Minister understand that the Government's complacency, reflected in his complacent answer to the question, leads to communities paying a heavy price? Will he give an undertaking to review the Government's failure in this area and really to tackle the scandal of youth unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman asked me what new initiatives the Government had taken, and I told him that youth credits were an example of a successful scheme that the Government had introduced. There are no new ideas among Opposition Members, which is why I thought that the hon. Gentleman had asked this question.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the continuing initiatives being taken through the training and enterprise councils and the fact that employers can have a major input into the TECs are a good way in which to create jobs? Will he pay tribute to the South and East Cheshire TEC which covers my constituency? It has introduced many initiatives and in Macclesfield and the surrounding area, we have among the lowest levels of unemployment among young people.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I endorse everything that he says about his local training and enterprise council, which is one of those involved in pushing forward our training credit initiative, which was a manifesto commitment. It enables young people to choose the training that suits their needs, rather than forcing them to take what they are offered. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that his close co-operation with the TEC bodes well for youngsters in that part of Great Britain. What a pity that Opposition Members do not take the same constructive approach.

Given that unemployment among young disabled people leaving youth training is between 35 and 50 per cent., does the Minister agree that training for young disabled people is woefully inadequate? What initiatives do the Government intend to bring forward?

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do everything possible to help disabled people, young and old alike. The Government have taken a number of initiatives to help to improve the position. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important to be conscious of that issue, especially when jobs have been thin on the ground as a result of recession. That is very much part of the policy and direction that we have given to TECs and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bears in mind when contracts are decided and the programme is determined for the subsequent year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is crucial, indeed heartening, for the long-term employment prospects of young people is the huge increase in training that has come about over the past eight years? Will he confirm that, over those eight years, the proportion of people leaving school and going into education and training has risen to nearly 75 per cent. against 50 per cent. eight years ago?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have done more than any other to create opportunities for youngsters in training, in schools and in further education. Although there are record numbers participating, we are by no means complacent. We want to build on that success, because we want to build a successful country; it is high time that Labour Members stopped simply carping and began helping us to achieve that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been declared in the Barnsley travel-to-work area from October 1992 to date.

Figures for redundancies are not available below those at regional level.

Is the Minister aware that, since 1990, unemployment in my constituency has increased by 44 per cent. and the level of vacancies has decreased by 60 per cent? Since October 1992, when we had the announcement of pit closures, we are likely to see 6,000 further redundancies in mining and related industries—the Houghton and Grimethorpe collieries closed in the past fortnight. It is not time that the Government started creating jobs, instead of throwing money at training and enterprise councils to train people for jobs that are not there? Could we not start by reversing some of the pit closure programme?

I draw a number of points from the three questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. He used the base of 1990. If one uses the base of July 1986 for this constituency, unemployment was 6,217. In April 1993, unemployment was 4,329, which is a reduction of more than 30 per cent. I thought that even the hon. Gentleman would have recognised that. We will take no lectures from Labour Members about pit closures—[Interruption.] They may not like it, but they will hear it. Between 1964 and 1970, 277 coal mines closed.

Does the Minister recognise that most of the people in Barnsley who have lost their jobs and been made redundant have benefited under the statutory redundancy scheme? Can he confirm that the Government are considering abolishing that scheme because they regard it as a burden on business?

Here we go again—here is another scare story. We will have quite a few of them over the coming weeks. If the hon. Gentleman starts to believe everything that he reads, he will be confused when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the statement that he intends to make.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of people aged 25 years and under who are unemployed.

814,742.

That is over 800,000, and 41,000 of them are in Wales. They are appalling figures. They represent the ruin of youthful hopes and great unhappiness in families. Will the right hon. Lady admit that it would be wrong for the Government to plan to strip many parts of the north of Wales of development area status, which represents the hope of more work, and give it to south coast towns? That would represent the complacency of her Department.

The assisted area map is a matter for some of my right hon. Friends and not necessarily for me. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to have input into the drawing up of that map, especially as far as the levels of unemployment are concerned.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the extraordinary figures for youth unemployment in Hampshire, which show that youth unemployment has been steadily falling and is now at its lowest level for three years, which is remarkable in view of the recession? Does she agree that it reflects the good work not only of her Department but of the Hampshire TEC, the Hampshire education department and especially the schools in achieving a higher staying-on rate?

It is possible that the words of my hon. Friend would have given some comfort to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) if he had been listening—which, of course, he was not. There is no question but that a well-trained, well-prepared cohort of young people, as we have in Hampshire, has the best possible chance of finding good jobs.

Does the Secretary of State realise that a figure of more than 800,000 youth unemployed is horrific to behold and that many of the young unemployed listening in Wallesey will not recognise the rosy picture that is being painted by the Conservative Government of the reality out there and their chances of getting work? What hope can she offer to the many people under the age of 25 whom I have met since I was elected a year ago who have never worked since they left school and see no prospect of work ahead of them?

The hon. Lady will know, because I have repeated it often in the House and elsewhere, that I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who faces unemployment. That, of course, includes young people. I hope that she is giving her support to the first-class work of the Employment Service and Merseyside TEC, which is doing sterling work with young people in her area, as well as the other TECs in the north-west. I also hope that she understands that if her party continues to espouse the extraordinary policies that it does, there will be no chance and no hope whatever for young people or anyone else to look for better prospects in employment under a Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people in Britain is currently in work, measured as a percentage of the population of working age; and what are the figures for other EC countries.

The British percentage in 1992 was 71 per cent. The figures for the other EC countries are in the form of a statistical table. With permission, I shall arrange for it to be printed in the Official Report.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are probably No. 2 in the EC in that table and that that is positive news which should be welcomed—something which the Labour party is incapable of doing? Does she further agree that if the Labour party national policy on a minimum wage were implemented, it would be likely to cost up to 2 million jobs in Britain?

Britain has the second-highest participation rate in the EC, second only to Denmark. The rate in France, for example, is about 60 per cent. That is directly attributable to the national minimum wage. In Italy, the rate is about 52 per cent.

Is it any wonder that other Common Market countries have marginally better figures of employment than Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have not."]—when one takes into account the fact that the Government import German coal at £110 a tonne and shut British pits which could produce it at £40 a tonne? Is it any wonder that the people out there do not believe a word that the Government say? The only growth industry in Britain is fiddling dole figures and the cost of living figures. It is time that we got rid of them.

Given that the hon. Gentleman's premise was incorrect, he stands the risk of not being believed. But I am amazed that he has transparently sought yet again, by raising spurious points about the figures, like the rest of his party, to obscure the good news about unemployment coming down for the third month running. Not one Opposition Member has drawn attention to the fact that, for the third month running, we have seen unemployment come down.

I appreciate that it will be off the cuff, but can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much money the Government are spending in the current year on youth training and youth credits?

I think that I can manage that off the cuff—about £850 million.

Will the Secretary of State deal with the fact that No. 1 in the table to which she referred was Denmark and, therefore, the figure cannot possibly have anything to do with levels of employment protection because Denmark has much better employment protection than Britain? Will she also reflect that at a time when the British Government are advertising in Swiss newspapers the low level of British employment protection, unemployment in Switzerland is only 4 per cent?

I can say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I apologise for confusing the hon. Lady with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which is clearly a terrible insult. It is not normally the hon. Lady's practice to talk Britain down, but I am afraid that even she has now fallen prey to this disease which attacks the Labour party. Employers do not need to come here, and they certainly would not if she and her hon. Friends were in power. They come here because we have the lowest business taxation in the industrialised world, sensible labour laws, a flexible job market and a well-trained work force. Regulation does not create jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to keep a high percentage of people in work we need the most flexible possible job market—part time, full time, self-employed, shift workers and the lot? We should not be taking lessons from people who are not as adept at finding work for their citizens as we are.

We must maintain the upmost flexibility in our labour market. Indeed, the example that we are setting is being looked at with great interest by employers in both France and Germany.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received on the provision of training for 16 to 19-year-olds.

The representations I receive from employers and others note the considerable progress made in increasing young people's participation in education and training.

Does the Minister accept that we are in danger of failing a whole generation of young people if we do not have a well-planned and well-resourced training programme? Is not it the case that, even today, academic qualifications are valued more highly than vocational qualifications, at a time when the economy needs young people with excellent skills in industry, business, commerce and science? As general national vocational qualifications in schools have failed, how do the Government intend to tackle this problem?

I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman until he made his criticism of GNVQs. I agree with him about the importance of training. I also think that it is important that we get across what these national vocational qualifications are about. They are not well enough understood in the country and it is important that they should be, so that we may deal with the kind of prejudice against vocational training that the hon. Gentleman identifies. So little known are NVQs that they were referred to in The Independent the other day as envy queues—which we tend to associate with Opposition Members. That is why the Government have a major campaign to get across what NVQs are and the importance of vocational training.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) seemed to be asking my hon. Friend whether he would find some more resources and find some more money. This is often the case from the Opposition parties and it may, in certain circumstances, be justified. But if my hon. Friend is to do that—and even if he is not to do it —can he tell the House where he proposes to make savings in his Department so that we can help to deal with the Government deficit?

I am surprised at my hon. Friend. He must not fall into the trap of confusing inputs with outputs. My right hon. Friend has been able this year to increase the number of opportunities by nearly 600,000 to 1·6 million for unemployed people by looking at how the resources are used and ensuring that they are used effectively. It is outputs that matter, not inputs.

Was not it the case that the unit price on a year's trading was predicated on the assumption that employers would be fighting each other for young people because of the demographic time bomb and therefore would be making an employers' contribution? He will know that this has not happened and that in many areas of the country there is an acute shortage of employer placements. They are not making their contribution and therefore the unit price in many cases is totally inadequate for quality training.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties of obtaining places, which in part has been a consequence of recession. However, I must give him the same advice as I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow): he must not confuse inputs with outputs. We have seen in the variation of costs of providing trading places around the country that some TECs have been able to do considerably more with given resources than have others. We need to ensure that the practice of the best becomes the practice of them all.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is introducing to encourage voluntary work among the long-term unemployed in the west midlands.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget the introduction of 60,000 voluntary work opportunities through community action. Of these, 6,570 will be available in the west midlands.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I remind him of the significant success of the old community programme, not least in Herefordshire, where a number of people gained employment in secure jobs as a consequence of participating in the scheme and many additional projects were completed? Does he agree that the revised community action, as announced in the Budget, will once again provide the opportunity for long-term unemployed people to become involved in voluntary work and for important projects to be carried out? However, it is important that people are aware that the scheme exists. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to make certain that its existence and benefits are fully understood by the public?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Community action provides a valuable service to the community by those who have been long-term unemployed. It is a scheme which will be administered by the Employment Service and the training enterprise councils, which will do a sufficient amount to ensure that the scheme becomes known.

Will the 6,000 people in the west midlands who are allowed to participate in the scheme continue to be registered as unemployed, or will they join the 77,000 people who have appeared on the sickness register in the past three months? Is not it a fact that the 221,000 unemployed people in the west midlands look to the Department to create jobs and training opportunities and not simply opportunities to participate in voluntary work?

Again, we see the Opposition decrying any scheme to help unemployed people. Why do the Opposition always complain when unemployment rises and when it falls, too?

Is my hon. Friend aware that not only do we have 500,000 layabouts, but 1 million people who draw benefit are working on the black economy? Has he heard the first cuckoo this year? We cannot ask that lot opposite because they spend every year in cuckoo land.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I may have heard the first cuckoo the first month that unemployment fell and we have seen that happen on two subsequent months. That is widely welcomed by all Conservative Members and, as usual, widely condemned by the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken up training credits.

A total of 49,000 young people have taken up training credits and every 16 and 17-year-old will have the opportunity to do so in the course of this Parliament, in line with our manifesto commitment.

Does the Secretary of State remember when the House was told that every 16 and 17-year-old would be guaranteed a YTS place? Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the 8,000 young Scots who cannot get a good training place will get one and restore some hope, some income and some future to the young people whom the Conservative party has totally abandoned?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that his constituency has been one of the first to benefit from training credits. If he thinks that nothing is being done in his constituency, I will gladly have the pilot carried out in my constituency instead of his. The hon. Gentleman has a real cheek coming to the House and quoting figures that he knows to be wrong when he and his constituency are benefiting from the Government's ideas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that training credits will help young people gain the necessary training and experience for the real world? Their problems can be resolved only in that way and certainly not by loud shouting, which seems to be the only answer that the Opposition have.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Training credits are a way of increasing choxe for youngsters who are seeking training, help and support. The Government have been the party of choice and have continued to extend choice into every area. Choice should be available for the unemployed and it is a great pity that Opposition Members are not prepared to endorse a programme which will be of great benefit to youngsters the length and breadth of Britain.

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

The overall policy of the Department is to promote a free and flexible labour market that is designed to help to encourage employment in Merseyside, as in all other areas.

The Secretary of State will be visiting Liverpool next month. Will she take the opportunity of her visit to meet representatives of the building trade unions and construction employers to see what she can do to help get the industry back to work again, not only in Liverpool but throughout the United Kingdom? Such action is badly needed.

I am sure that, if there is time in the Secretary of State's diary, she will consider such a meeting, although I understand that a packed day is already planned. The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Chancellor went a long way in his autumn statement last year to protect capital projects, an action which vastly helped the building industry.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

I have been asked to reply.

Given that a system of charging for hospital beds would be a tax under which the longer one was ill the more one would have to pay, and given that it would destroy at a stroke the principle of a national health service free at the time of need and point of use, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance today that the Government will never force NHS patients to pay charges for NHS beds?

I can best point the hon. Gentleman to what was said in our manifesto: that need, not ability to pay, is and will remain the basis on which care is offered to all in the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministers said in an interview in one of this morning's newspapers, we shall honour our pledges both in the spirit and the letter.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls.

While I am at it, may I just say—[In terruption.]

Order. I apologise. I had not appreciated that the Leader of the House had not completed his reply.

That is entirely understandable, Madam Speaker. I simply wanted to add that it was good to see the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) back from his triumph in masterminding the loss of Labour's deposit in Newbury.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

I have been asked to reply.

Now that the Maastricht Bill has received its Third Reading, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, and indeed every opportunity, to tell the people of Britain that the Maastricht treaty is a move away from federalism, not a move towards it? It is the Liberal and Labour parties which are self-confessedly federalist and the Conservative party which is not. Is not this a treaty which gives us the opportunity to co-operate with other nation states, to the benefit of this country, which has always been the policy of the Conservative party?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By enshrining subsidiarity and co-operation between states, the Maastricht treaty will move us to a much less centralised Europe. That is a major achievement and a great gain from the British point of view. As for the Labour party, it has, to my recollection, had seven different policies on Europe in the time that I have been in the House and the Opposition appeared to be changing their minds again even last week.

The Lord President quoted the Prime Minister on the manifesto pledges of the Conservative party. Does he recall the pledge not to increase national insurance contributions—broken? Does he recall the pledge to maintain mortgage interest relief—broken? How does he square all that with what the Prime Minister said yesterday?

My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear in his answer last week, in setting out the Government's intentions to review public expenditure against the background of the pledges that we have made and the need to protect the most vulnerable. If the right hon. Lady disagrees with that, perhaps she would care to tell us whether she is disowning, in his absence, her right hon. and learned Friend's statement that we should be prepared to re-examine everything and that he has not ruled anything out.

The Leader of the House and his party kept talking about taking tough decisions. When will the Government take the tough decision to admit even the smallest share of the blame for the state to which this country has been reduced—never mind the price the Government are asking the British people to pay?

When it comes to talking about the price that the British people must pay, the hon. Lady must count as some kind of expert. I have been looking back at something said by her hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) some time ago:

"I will not take lessons in Left wing unity from Margaret Beckett. She was the person who went into the 1976 Labour government to implement the cuts over which I had resigned."

Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

The Lord President knows full well that the Government went into the general election campaign promising tax cuts and public expenditure increases. Is not the most fundamental problem that Britain faces today the fact that it has a Government whose dishonesty is exceeded only by their incompetence?

What I know is that the Government are approaching their difficult task in a responsible and considered way and that they are not going to get into the position that led the right hon. Lady into the problem that I have just quoted—the IMF coming here telling the Government what to do.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's priorities in the European Community will, in the foreseeable future, be to secure the entry to the Community of our former partners in the European Free Trade Association, notably the Scandinavian countries and Austria, and to facilitate the arrangements that the Community makes with the countries of eastern and central Europe?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a number of important tasks in the Community, including carrying forward the concept of subsidiarity. Among the most important tasks and among those on which we have made the most gains in recent months is that of enlargement, to embrace exactly the countries to which my hon. Friend refers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically assure the House that no Government agency was involved in any way in coaching witnesses from Walter Somers before they appeared before the Select Committee looking into the Iraqi gun affair?

The right hon. Gentleman well knows that all these matters are the subject of an inquiry by Lord Justice Scott. The most appropriate course for Ministers and other hon. Members is to allow that inquiry to conduct its proceedings properly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's Audit Commission report on the chronic mismanagement, waste and incompetence of Lambeth council painted a grim picture of Labour in control of councils? Does he further agree that it is a bit rich when the deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about the Government displaying incompetence and dishonesty when Labour has a record like that?

I was indeed pretty horrified to hear details of that Audit Commission report on Lambeth council, although not entirely surprised in view of its socialist record of incompetence and waste, which is well known on both sides of the House. It reminded me, once again, of that immortal quote from Tribune last May:

"Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils … have been a feature of political life for as long as anyone can remember."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Lord President aware that the first passenger train that ran in England between Liverpool and Manchester achieved a top speed of 29 mph? That was in 1829. Is not it disgraceful that 164 years ago a train could achieve a higher speed than the train currently running between Nelson and Colne in my constituency? Is the Lord President further aware that I have a letter from the chairman of British Rail which says that the 20 mph speed restriction will be permanent because of cuts in Government funding?

Somewhat to my surprise—I had not anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would seek to be so helpful—that seems to be the best argument I have heard for some time for the rapid passage of the Railways Bill, which is before the House today.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that subsidiarity can be applied retrospectively as well as prospectively and that that means that any European legislation which has been laid before the House and which we have had to rubber stamp since 1986 can—if it meets the subsidiarity test—be either amended or swept aside?

My hon. Friend is right. The Commission is reviewing existing European Community law. At the Edinburgh Council it presented some 32 examples of legislation which should be either withdrawn, amended or re-examined, or further proposals that should not be pursued. That review is continuing and a full report is scheduled for the European Council in December this year. It is our intention that those items to which subisidiarity applies should be amended or repealed.

In regard to the Government's intention to reduce the budget deficit, we have heard from Minister after Minister that nothing is ruled out, yet we have heard nothing about increasing the higher rate of tax. Should not that be ruled in?

It is not only from Ministers that we have heard that. As I reminded the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, too. That is the sensible way in which to approach these matters and that is the way in which the Government are approaching them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the relative importance of trade and aid in assisting the economic development of the poorest nations.

I have been asked to reply.

I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for what he has just said. Does he agree that the major objective of our aid policy should be to encourage the promotion of private sector enterprises in the developing world? In that context, will he pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation? Does he further agree that we have a fine record as a Government for fighting for free trade, which brings advantages to the developed and the developing world? Can he give an assurance that that fine record will be enhanced at the G7 summit in Tokyo in July this year?

Certainly I acknowledge, as I think the whole House would, the leading role that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues have played in advancing the cause of free trade and the successful outcome to the GATT round. My hon. Friend is also right about the part played by the Commonwealth Development Corporation which is the main instrument in our aid programme for the direct promotion of private investment in developing countries. As it happens, United Kingdom direct private investment in developing countries was estimated to be some £3 billion in 1991. That is half the overall total for the whole European Community. It is a record of which we can be proud.

If the Minister is in favour of free trade, when will we abandon the practice of demanding that developing countries drop their import tariffs and when will we stop dumping subsidised CAP food on them?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have always taken the view that trade is as important as aid in advancing the circumstances of developing countries. I think he will agree that we have a better record than many in promoting those objectives.

I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 22, page 23, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 19 on page 24.