To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what oversight his Department has of the validation policies of organisations that examine and award national vocational qualifications.

The Department sets a framework for the National Council of Vocational Qualifications, which in turn oversees quality assurance arrangements for national vocational qualifications. I shall write to the hon. Member with fuller details of our procedures than can be given in a parliamentary reply.

The Minister will be aware that a number of large companies, including Ford Motor Co. Ltd. in the UK, have expressed their concern about a fall in standards —in their opinion—of training and vocational qualifications. She will also be aware that the National Council of Vocational Qualifications is currently conducting an investigation into the fraudulent award of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications. Bearing in mind those serious matters, will the Minister conduct an independent inquiry into those issues, especially into the bonuses paid to colleges and training agencies on a pass basis rather than a quality of training basis?

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. Procedures are already in place that require our training and enterprise councils to set in being audit trails which should track and monitor carefully the quality of training that is provided. The hon. Gentleman slightly understates—indeed, he considerably understates—the amount of confidence that employers show in NVQs. Of all employers, 44 per cent. are already users and 96 per cent. say that they are either experiencing benefits or expect to experience benefits as a result of NVQs. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to get NVQs right, but I believe that we have made great strides towards that goal and I should not like an odd case to detract from that.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is widespread interest in the whole system of NVQs across the world in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and many others? Those countries feel great anxiety that if they go down the same road as Britain, which they are sorely tempted to do and which would provide a great export opportunity for this country's skills, there should be a guarantee of consistency of standards.

There is a general shared perception that we should ensure that standards are consistent, nationally recognised, continually updated and widely respected.

Doe the Minister agree that the whole credibility of NVQs is on the line when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has revealed in early-day motions 1016 and 1017, we know that there has been systematic abuse of the system of payment? If the Minister were honest she would admit to the House that I have written asking her to look into the question of fraud in output funding and NVQs, but that she has done nothing. Does she accept that the basis of output funding and the lack of credible audit procedures allow that systematic fraud to take place?

No, I do not accept that there is systematic or widespread fraud. When allegations of particular frauds are made, they are carefully investigated. I have written to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has raised some serious issues in early-day motions, and I have asked him to supply me with the evidence behind those issues so that they may be properly investigated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proportion of workers in part-time employment.

In December 1993, 28 per cent. of the work force in employment in Great Britain worked part time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the 1970s the number of part-time workers as a proportion of the overall total increased by 6 per cent. compared with only 5 per cent. in the 1980s? Is she also aware that since 1979 soaring manufacturing productivity has boosted average net weekly take-home pay by no less than £80 a week, compared with stagnant earnings and stagnant productivity between 1974 and 1979? Does that not graphically illustrate that it was the Labour Government who presided over the sweatshop economy and that the only Mickey Mouse jobs were those that they gave to their buddies in local government?

It amply demonstrates to the House that it is the Conservative party which has presided over a rise in take-home pay for people on average earnings. What is important to those people is what is left in their pockets for them to exercise choice over. The Government have consistently stood by that, while the Labour party, which has called for expenditure on all and made promises on everything, has never delivered when in office.

When does the Department intend to respond to the Law Lords' judgment which established that the current discrimination against part-time workers in employment law must be ended? When shall we get legislation to bring the discrimination to an end and put things right?

Distinctions between part-time and full-time workers and their rights were maintained by Labour Governments, so the Law Lords' ruling applies just as much to what Labour Governments did as to what we do. We shall respond at such time as our deliberations are complete.

Is not part-time work one of the greatest single benefits to those women who wish to combine economic work with family responsibilities?

It is indeed, and I am rather saddened that the Opposition always try to sell part-time work as some sort of second-rate option. We know from the labour force survey that it is the preferred option of those who work part time. Less than 14 per cent. of those who do so would work full time if they had the opportunity to do so. I should like to hear Opposition Members welcome that.

Is the Minister aware that the proportion of part-time workers is likely to grow if we have any more announcements like the one made this morning by the London International Group about manufacturing job losses in Dundee, London and south Wales, with the switch of production to Malaysia where they will not buy British goods? When will the Government recognise that the deregulated marketplace that they advocate is a one-way street to disinvestment and job losses in this country and to exploitation and slave labour in the third world?

The one-way street that appears to be operating is the vastly increased inward investment to the United Kingdom as a result of the Government's policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the employment of people with disabilities.

Many, especially from my hon. Friend.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the example set by his Department is followed by other Government Departments and by bodies throughout the public sector? Will he put his personal imprint on the code of good practice? Will he appoint an ombudsman to ensure that the civil service code is applied throughout the public sector?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise for the code, which I warmly and strongly endorse. I share his wish to see the code extended. I should like to see many other bodies, especially public bodies, endorsing the aims of the code and introducing codes of their own. I shall, of course, consider carefully my hon. Friend's other points.

Will the Secretary of State recall that it was 50 years ago when legislation was introduced providing that 3 per cent. of all employees should be disabled people? Is he aware that only 0.7 per cent. of private sector employees are disabled and that the situation is not much better in the public sector, where only 0.8 per cent. of employees are disabled? What will he do to try to overcome this and ensure that disabled people have their fair share of employment within these islands?

First, consideration in Committee of the Civil Rights (Disabled People) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), has just been completed and I am considering carefully the issues that were raised at that stage.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the code, which the House endorses, is creating unemployment at something like four times the average level of unemployment in the country at present? Can he tell us whether Government Departments are observing the code? If they are not observing it, does he not think that he should be setting an example and asking them to observe it?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would check his facts. He is talking to the Secretary of State of a Government Department which observes and meets the quota requirement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems faced by epileptics in employment? Will he look into the case of my constituent, Helen Barr, who was recently sacked from her job as a hospital cleaner ostensibly on the ground that she had an epileptic fit even though she declared that she was an epileptic when she took on the job? Does he agree that epilepsy is a disability just like any other, but is widely misunderstood by employers, and that epileptics face widespread discrimination and prejudice?

My hon. Friend has highlighted an important case and an important area. I accept that there is a need to guide employers about some disabilities in particular. My recollection is that the Employment Service produces a guide on epilepsy. If it does not, I will make sure that it does, and I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications of the recent House of Lords ruling on part-time workers for United Kingdom employment legislation.

The Government are carefully considering the judgment to ascertain its full implications, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Does the Minister recognise that that is the answer which she gave on 11 March and on 23 March in European Standing Committee B? Is it good enough for the Minister to continue to say that the Government are taking legal advice and that when they have heard it they will make a statement? Is it not time to tell the millions of part-time workers, who want to hear when they are to know whether they are to have their rights to sickness benefit, holidays and redundancy pay recognised by the Government?

I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the consistency of my answers. Let me make it clear to the House. We shall respond and make an announcement when—and only when—all our investigations, all our proper consultation, and all our deliberations are complete. The difference between the Government and Labour Members is that we take these things responsibly while they make cheap political points out of them.

Will my hon. Friend confirm my impression that if we accept the ruling in all its rigour, the effect would be to reduce employment opportunities for a great number of people who are on the margins of the job market? That will increase unemployment, not decrease it, and is exactly the sort of thing that is on offer to us from Europe if that is how the country votes in the European elections.

I do not intend to speculate on the effects of the judgment until our deliberations are complete, but it has always been a priority of the Government to limit as far as possible the burdens on business. That is why we have one of the highest levels of employment in Europe, that is why we have falling unemployment, that is why we have good part-time opportunities, that is why we have inward investment, and that is why we are carrying on with the policy.

Will the Minister explain how she can possibly stand there and say that the Government are not obliged to give part-time women workers equal rights with full-time workers when a House of Lords judgment which interprets European law says that the Government are obliged to do so? She is obliged to say that the Government accept the judgment and will implement it; that is the rule of law. In the debate on sex discrimination, two Tory Members said that the finding of the House of Lords should not be obeyed. The thing that the Minister and no one in her party seems to understand—[Interruption.] Does the Minister appreciate that women who want part-time work do not want second-rate work? They do not want low pay and lack of access to training; they want holiday entitlements and protection from unfair dismissal. Will the Minister accord to women the right to full-time rights for part-time workers?

The hon. Lady is under a complete misapprehension. Some 69 per cent. of all those who work already qualify for full protection rights. Of the remainder, only 3 per cent. fail to qualify solely on the grounds of the hours they work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the west midlands have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the past 12 months.

A total of 143,600.

May I express to my right hon. Friend my great pleasure at hearing that news? Is it a reasonable supposition that the considerable number of extra jobs coming on stream from Jaguar, Land-Rover, Flight's Travel, Ansell's and others would not have come about had Britain been a signatory to the social chapter?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

What conclusion does the Secretary of State draw from the simple statistical truth—which can be confirmed by the experience of anyone who has lived in the west midlands for the past 30 years—that employment prospects, particularly for school leavers, were infinitely better under the Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s than they have been under the Tory Governments of the 1980s and 1990s?

I do not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston highlighted the number of new job opportunities which will arise in the west midlands in the coming year, and it is a fact that unemployment in the west midlands has fallen by just under 30,000 in the past 12 months. Although I gave the figure 143,600 in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, we are setting a target of 148,000 for the Employment Service to place in work during the next 12 months in the west midlands and I am confident that it will meet and beat that target.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one quarter of Japanese investment in this country goes to the west midlands? Is he also aware that the most recent west midlands business survey, by the university of Wolverhampton, showed that industrial confidence in the west midlands was at its best level ever? That is one reason why unemployment in my constituency has dropped by 10 per cent. in the past year alone. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that such a surge in confidence would be endangered by precisely the kind of social engineering on industry in which the Labour party seems to specialise?

My hon. Friend is right, and there are interesting statistics in that area. Some 70 Japanese companies have sought to base themselves in the west midlands region. That is a fine tribute to the work force in the west midlands. Those companies see this country as a centre of free enterprise, free trade and free markets. That is why we shall continue to win a record level of inward investment, which currently exceeds the levels of inward investment into all the other countries of the European Union put together.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the level of male unemployment in the west midlands remains alarmingly high? Is he conscious that industry there is being affected by the dumping of very cheap goods —for example, garden tools from the far east—which in the past have been made successfully in, and sold from, the west midlands?

When one analyses present trends, one sees that although unemployment is unacceptably high in the west midlands and I constantly refer to that fact, it is on a firm downward trend throughout the country and in the west midlands. The downward trend in the country is now between 15,000 and 20,000, notwithstanding occasional monthly rises. I believe that that trend will continue, and that problems of the kind that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned will be more than outweighed by the constant flow of additional inward investment which will provide increasing job opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of British seamen in employment in each year since 1978.

The statistics show that in 1993 there were 31,000 employees in the sea transport industry in the United Kingdom compared with 77,000 in 1978.

I am not surprised that the Secretary of State has failed to give the current figures for employment of seamen. Is it not a disgrace that a nation which built its wealth on maritime trade is sitting back and allowing its merchant fleet constantly to diminish and that our shipyards are empty? Is it not an absolute disgrace that the Government are standing aside and doing nothing about those two job-creating industries? Is it not about time the House started paying back its merchant seamen and shipbuilders by providing the sort of jobs that could be created on Merseyside, Tyneside, Clydeside and the rest?

First, I am giving in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question the only figures that I can give and the only figures that are available to me. Secondly, I am not, and neither are my Government, standing aside—[Interruption.] My party or my Government—neither I nor my party nor the Government in which I am proud to serve as a member are standing aside. Today, my officials are meeting, the merchant navy training board to finalise the proposal for a prototype of the new modern apprenticeships and the frameworks to be introduced in the shipping industry later this year. I believe that the new modern apprenticeship scheme will give a real opportunity to the shipping industry, which I hope that it will accept.

Is it not the case that the British Merchant Navy still wins on grounds of quality, if no longer on grounds of quantity, and is that not due to the high standards of training that we give to our young people for a career at sea—not least at the Denton sea school in my constituency?

My hon. Friend highlights the importance of training, to which I have just referred in stressing the importance of the new modern apprenticeship scheme for the shipping industry. I remind him and my right hon. and hon. Friends that the successful completion of the GATT Uruguay round and the consequent increase in world trade is very good news for the United Kingdom. It will be particularly good news for the shipping industry.

What good is the apprenticeship scheme if people who are already qualified cannot get jobs? What help can the Secretary of State offer to one of my constituents who has just been made redundant from a cross-channel ferry so that people from Poland can be employed in his place?

The importance of the new modern apprenticeship scheme is that it will give school leavers aged 16 and 17 next year the opportunity to increase their skills to national vocational qualification level 3, which is equivalent to A-level, and to focus those skills on the shipping industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made of the proportion of those working part time who want to work full time.

The labour force survey estimates for autumn 1993 show that under 14 per cent. of those working part time did so because they could not find a full-time job.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while few part-timers want to work full time, a substantial number of full-timers—about a third—would like to work part time? Does she agree that labour market flexibility is the key not only to lower unemployment but to increased competitiveness and meeting the wishes of working people?

I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the great opportunities offered by part-time work. The fact that more part-time opportunities are on offer for those who choose and prefer them, enabling more women to combine economic work with family responsibilities if they want to, can only be welcomed.

Does the Minister accept that the national insurance system discriminates against employers who wish to create full-time jobs? Is she aware of the hardship that that causes to many families and the effect on public finances? As the economy slowly recovers, jobs are being taken by people who are not registered as unemployed and there is no saving in dole queue money. The wages paid to those employees are so low that they do not pay much tax. If the Government cannot wipe out discrimination for the right reasons, will they do so for other reasons? There are good, sound economic reasons for putting the public finances into equilibrium again.

The best way to encourage employers to employ part-time or full-time workers—as best suits their business needs and the wishes of their employees—is to reduce burdens on business. That has been, and will continue to be, the thrust of the Government's employment policy.

Is not it a fact that many people very much value the opportunity to work part time, whether in catering, nursing homes, rest homes, education, school dinners or whatever? Is not it also serious when a judgment forces on the House of Commons and the establishment restrictions and obligations on employers? Nothing will undermine people's right to work part time more than restrictions placed on employers.

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. It is right that people have those choices, which provide tremendous opportunities. The answer to the second part of his question, as I have said several times today, is that we are considering most carefully the implications of the Lords judgment arid how to implement it. The burdens on business will obviously be one of our considerations.

What about people who cannot work full time or part time because the Government deny them that opportunity? Has not the Government's pit closure programme dumped thousands of former miners on the economic scrap heap, like the miners at Tower colliery, who this afternoon were forced to accept closure because yesterday the wages of every miner at the pit were cut? British Coal and the Secretary of State have lied through their teeth.

Order. That statement is unacceptable in this House. I ask the hon. Lady to rephrase it.

I will withdraw that statement. The Secretary of State and British Coal have told blatant untruths.

Order. The English language is very rich. I am sure that the hon. Lady can do even better and I ask her to try.

British Coal and the Secretary of State have been peddling untruths.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the south-eastern region have been placed into work by the Employment Service in the past 12 months.

A total of 406,900 seasonally adjusted placings to February 1994, which is an increase of 47,900 over the previous year.

Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that in the south-east, which includes Finchley, there has been a reduction in unemployment of 5 per cent. in the past year, born of the sensible policies of the Conservative party? Does not that contrast with the parts of the world where the most significant employment is that of the dead-beat policies that are still peddled by the Labour party?

Yes, indeed. The increased number of placings, the falling unemployment and the increased number of members of the civilian work force in employment, add up to a huge endorsement of our policies. The only thing to be regretted is that whenever there is a good news such as that which my hon. Friend has just brought to the attention of the House, the Opposition simply sit there looking as glum as owls.

Is the Minister aware that in the past year throughout the south-east of the country and in London thousands of people have lost their jobs and many people are suffering from mortgage pressure, from loss of earnings and from pressure on their lives as a result of the unemployment created by the Government?

Why does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the fall in unemployment? Why does not he welcome the fall in interest rates, which reduces that mortgage pressure? Why does not he welcome the increase in numbers in employment? Why is he so concerned to peddle misery and unhappiness to his constituents? [Interruption.]

Order. There was so much noise going on in the House that I did not hear what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said. [Interruption.] Order. If there was less noise, I would have done so. I believe that she used a phrase which last week was unacceptable to me. If that is the case, it is still unacceptable to me now, and I ask the hon. Lady, before we proceed any further, to withdraw it. [Interruption.] Order. I will deal with this matter. I understand that the hon. Lady used—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

There is no point of order. I am on my feet. Am I to understand that the hon. Lady used the phrase, "peddling untruths"?

Yes.

In that case, it was unacceptable to me last week and— [Interruption.] Order. It was rephrased last week. [Interruption.] Order. I am asking the hon. Lady to rephrase the comment she made. It is as simple as that.

I understand that last week the Prime Minister—I was not in my place at the time—actually used the phrase, "peddled an untruth", and I understand that the Prime Minister was not asked to withdraw that particular phrase.

The Prime Minister rephrased that. [Interruption.] Order. He rephrased it and I am asking the hon. Lady to do precisely the same.

I repeat, British Coal and the Secretary of State misled the House.

In that case I accept what the hon. Lady said, and we can now proceed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of youth unemployment in the east midlands; and what it was in April 1979.

Among 18 to 24-year-olds, 51,271 in January 1994 and 58,627 in October 1983, which is the earliest date for which comparable information is available.

The labour force survey shows that nearly 20 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds are unemployed, and that is on the Government's fiddled figures. That figure is far greater than for any other age group, and twice as high as for some age groups. What is to be done about the scandal of youth unemployment? Our futures depend on employment. Why cannot we have high-quality education, proper training and investment for jobs instead of low-level training schemes?

As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about youth unemployment, a concern that is shared, perhaps he would like to welcome the following: that we have lower than the average EC youth unemployment; that only 138 young people in England have now been waiting for the delivery of the guarantee for more than eight weeks; that in his constituency the figure has fallen from 42 young people to one young person; and the increased training and vocational opportunities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that youth unemployment has been falling fast throughout Derbyshire, including north-east Derbyshire, and is down by 21 per cent. in Erewash compared with last year? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is businesses that create jobs and increasing business confidence and healthy order books in companies throughout the east midlands are already translating into better prospects for people out of work and for school leavers this summer?

I agree with my hon. Friend. If business confidence is the key, no one need look to the Opposition to generate it.

Does the Minister accept that there is a greater sense of relative deprivation between the poor and the well-off in the east midlands and elsewhere which, to quote from a Home Office document, has produced a class of person for whom

"a real job or the prospect of a real job has been absent in all the crucial years"

It is hard to match falling unemployment with the absence of job prospects. The hon. and learned Gentleman is out of date and his points are extremely selective. His mission in life appears to be to depress rather than cheer the most vulnerable.

Will my hon. Friend take note that, in a effort to reduce youth unemployment in France, the French Government are dismantling minimum wage legislation in order to create extra jobs?

If minimum wage legislation were ever to be introduced in Britain we would probably lose up to 2 million jobs. That is the Opposition's policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the outward divestment of jobs from the United Kingdom to (a) other countries in the European Union and (b) the rest of the world.

I agree with that part of paragraph 78 of the Employment Select Committee's report published on 10 February which refers to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Does not the Minister feel like someone trying to fill up a bath without noticing that the plug has been pulled out? Again and again, he counts the jobs that are coming into the country, but never does he count the jobs that are being siphoned out. How will he prevent British Telecom and British Gas from scouring the sweatshops of the far east trying to peddle our British jobs to those firms that pay the worst wages in the world? I am not a Prime Minister, so I cannot accuse the Minister of peddling untruths, but is he peddling British jobs abroad?

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the Select Committee report. If he had, he would see that I have already directly answered the point that he has just made. I shall continue to praise the efforts of the United Kingdom's work force in the past 15 years in bringing to this country nearly 4,000 inward investment projects involving half a million jobs. That is a record of which we have every right to be proud.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting today's announcement by London International of the plant closure in my constituency and urge the company to think again? If its decision remains unchanged, will my right hon. Friend make every effort and take every measure to ensure that all those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs as a result will be found new jobs?

I will of course talk to the local training and enterprise council and Employment Service branch to make sure that everything possible is done in the direction to which my hon. Friend referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive regarding its prosecution policy in cases of death at work; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is in regular contact with the Health and Safety Executive and I fully endorse its approach to enforcement.

Does the Minister accept that the publication "The Perfect Crime" by the West Midlands Health and Safety Advice Centre clearly shows the absence of active policing of death at work and of prosecution of bad employers who cause death at work? Given the Law Commission's statement last week that it is considering a change in the law on prosecuting bad employers who cause death at work, will the Government stop the cuts in the Health and Safety Executive and prosecute more bad employers, who kill more people than are killed on Britain's roads?

I have every confidence in the Health and Safety Executive's prosecution policy. Before entering the Chamber, I checked on the matter and understand that in the past 18 months, the executive has referred 17 possible cases of manslaughter to the Crown Prosecution Service. We should be proud that the rate of fatal and non-fatal accidents in this country is falling, and that we have one of the best health and safety records in the world.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

During his many meetings with business leaders, has my right hon. Friend ever been asked by even one of them to introduce a minimum statutory wage?

No, in my many meetings I have not yet been asked to introduce a statutory minimum wage, but a number of employers have expressed concern at the prospect. They believe that it would cost jobs andl harm competitiveness, and I agree.

Given the threat of fatal catastrophe that now hangs over Gorazde and the undoubted confusion that sadly attends the efforts of the international community in Bosnia, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a clear statement of future policy objectives is urgently needed. I propose that they should include a redoubling of efforts to secure a ceasefire at Gorazde; the reaffirmation by this and other countries of their political, military and humanitarian commitment to the area; and a clear decision by the international community to make safe areas safe, in the knowledge that the United Nations will require to be given sufficient resources to perform that task, but also in the knowledge that those safe areas may offer the only haven to the victims of a brutal civil war.

I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. There is no doubt that our objectives in Bosnia have not changed. Last week's setback in Gorazde—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear to the House yesterday, it was a setback for the United Nations—does not alter the fact that we wish to secure a complete ceasefire in Bosnia. It should not be forgotten by the House or others that we have established a ceasefire between the Croat and Bosnian forces in central Bosnia as well as in Sarajevo. However, as latest events have tragically shown, the negotiators have not yet been able to extend that ceasefire elsewhere in Bosnia. At the moment, we are onsidering both here in the United Kingdom and with our partners precisely what needs to be done next. There will of course be meetings among NATO allies tomorrow.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of safe areas? Will he undertake to discuss this fully with our partners? The United Nations, having resolved to create safe areas as havens for the victims of war, should resolve to make them possible by committing itself to that purpose and by using the necessary means to achieve it—Britain's contribution included, of course.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are concerned, and have been for a long time, to secure, as far as it is practicable for us to do so, the safety of people in areas of Bosnia, in Gorazde or elsewhere. Before we make any blanket assurance, we have to consider whether the practical will, not just in the United Kingdom but in other countries as well, exists to release the resources to enable us to do that. We have to be careful before we make any practical assurances.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the unacceptably high levels of local council debt, particularly among councils controlled by the Opposition parties? I refer to Liverpool and Manchester and to councils in London such as Islington, whose debt amounts to £5,500 per adult in the council's area. That adds unacceptably to the council tax. What will the Government do about it?

My hon. Friend turns to a point that will be much in evidence during the local authority debates and during the whole local election campaign over the next few weeks. Irrespective of the equitable method of funding local authorities, there is no doubt about which local authorities, under what political control, run up substantial debts: we know that those that are in debt are Labour local authorities. We also know that those that do not adequately collect rents are Labour local authorities. I believe that many people will see the connection between the first and the second.

Returning to the question of future policy for Bosnia, may I ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to make it clear that sanctions against Serbia will not be lifted and will not be open to negotiation until there is a full and secure peace settlement in Bosnia?

We have no proposals to change the present sanctions regime, which has been in hand for some time. We have consistently said that the sanctions are in place to try to encourage people to act moderately and reasonably in the future. I have no present proposals to change them.

Has my right hon. Friend seen that the reported crime rate for over half the police areas in England and Wales is falling? Is not that evidence that the Government's law and order policy is working? And is not the fact that the courts have been imposing longer sentences evidence that, by taking the worst offenders out of circulation, the Home Secretary was right to say that prison works?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. There is no doubt about the immense public concern about crime and no doubt about the desire of all parties, in the House and elsewhere, that it should decrease. It has been most encouraging recently to note that, in a number of areas, innovative policing ideas—Bumblebee in the Metropolitan area, but operations in other areas, too—seem to have had a material effect on the crime statistics.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

In the excitement of last week's Question Time, the Prime Minister completely failed to answer my question. May I therefore ask it again? In the aftermath of his defeat in the local and European elections, will he continue to limp along with his battle-weary Government, or will he take the honourable path and resign?

I look forward to answering the hon. Gentleman's questions for a long time to come.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past few days, some 12 foreign correspondents have had their accreditation withdrawn by President Milosevic, including Sky Television's chief correspondent, Mr. van Lynden? Is not that further evidence of the evil nature of the Serbian dictatorship and does not it show that it would be a very good thing if my right hon. Friend could meet Presidents Clinton, Mitterrand and Yeltsin at the earliest opportunity?

I know of the expulsions that concern my hon. Friend and I deplore that restriction of press freedom. We have made the Belgrade authorities aware of our views. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I see no likelihood of an early meeting; but I assure him that we are in very close touch with each of the Governments and Heads of Government whom he mentioned.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Why has not the Prime Minister properly consulted and listened to organisations such as the Royal British Legion and other veteran associations when preparing the events in commemoration of D-day?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There has been a great deal of consultation and discussion; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met members of the Normandy Veterans Association and the Royal British Legion this morning, and—as the hon. Gentleman may or may not know—Field Marshal Lord Bramall is part of the committee discussing and organising events for D-day.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the national health service will continue to be available to all, irrespective of age or ability to pay? Will he condemn Opposition Members who are scaremongering, and worrying elderly people in particular? Is not the national health service for everyone in the country who needs health care?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and many millions of patients who are treated each day can attest to that. It is undoubtedly the policy that the national health service should in no way discriminate on grounds of age in allocating treatment. It is up to the clinicians concerned, in consultation with colleagues, to decide on the appropriate course of treatment for any patient, whatever that patient's age; but any patient, whatever his or her age, is entitled to the treatment that he or she needs under the national health service.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister join me in deploring the decision of SmithKline Beecham—which made a profit of £1.22 billion last year—to close a factory that has stood in St. Helens for more than 100 years, sack 500 workers and transfer their employment to a non-union, low-pay firm in Devon? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with the people of St Helens, that this is the unacceptable face of multinational capitalism?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no detailed knowledge of what has happened with SmithKline Beecham, and I am disinclined to comment on any case of which I have no such knowledge.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to the things that we hold dear in this country—such as social services and the national health service—comes from the growth of highly competitive economies in the Pacific basin? Do not our party and my right hon. Friend's approach to Europe provide the only way of dealing with that competition, both for this country and for Europe in general?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are now operating in an increasingly competitive world. Nowadays, many parts of the world that were once readily prepared to accept British exports are manufacturing the same goods and competing with us in world markets. Unless we become as competitive as possible and keep that competitiveness, we shall lose jobs, income and influence, both economic and political.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister give stronger backing to Britain's manufacturing industries? Will he, for example, give help to the British steel industry in the European Union, where the German, Italian and Spanish Governments are cheating? Does he agree that Britain's steel communities have made their sacrifice in the form of tens of thousands of redundancies and many plant closures and that now is the time for the right hon. Gentleman's Government to back British steel?

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that we have raised a number of cases of suspected illegal subsidies with the Commission—the most recent being that of the bankrupt German company, Saarstahl. The Minister for Industry will raise that case again on Friday in the Industry Council in Luxembourg.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate SmithKline Beecham on investing £200 million in Harlow, which is good news for this country and which will be the largest project, after the channel tunnel, in Britain?

I see rather earlier than I expected the wisdom of not responding to the question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) without having the details of the case in front of me. In view of what has been said by both hon. Gentlemen, I will certainly examine the matter.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 35.

The new clause and the amendments refer to extremely technical provisions about the admissibility of documents, and particularly copies of documents, as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings arising under the various taxes administered by the Customs and Excise. The new clause and amendments correct errors not only in the Bill as originally drafted but in the law as it stood. They are extremely minor errors. They arise from changes in Scottish law on the admissibility of evidence. They do not change the substantive law, but they make clear what documents are admissible as evidence.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the new clause and amendments appear to be minor changes. However, it would be helpful to the House if he could explain what difference it would have made if he had not tabled the amendments. Where exactly have the errors occurred, in respect of both the Bill and the position of the law as it currently stands? Does he anticipate that any claims against the Exchequer will arise out of the errors in the previous law?

No, we do not expect any claims to arise from the errors. I am not aware of any cases which have occurred or are pending at this moment as a result of the confusion that might have arisen from the items being in the law. The Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 allowed computer evidence to be treated like evidence in other business documents in civil proceedings. The Bill as it is currently drafted, and the Acts which are referred to in the new clause and amendments, referred to the old civil provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968, which was originally about civil proceedings but applied later to criminal proceedings. Those proceedings were deleted from statute law some time ago. They are still referred to in bits of the customs law.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. It is good to know that someone is keeping a careful check on the details of these matters. One dreads to think how much other obsolete legislation there might be lurking in the nooks and crannies of the statutes. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and I cannot see any reason to oppose the new clause.

I beg to move amendment No. 45, a new schedule—Indexation losses: transitional relief—

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No.44.

Clause 93 ensures that for disposals on or after Budget day last year the capital gains tax indexation allowance cannot increase or create a capital loss. The clause was debated in depth during the Committee stage. I explained that the restriction of indexation allowances for losses was an important anti-avoidance measure. Significant abuse of indexation allowances for losses had been identified. We estimated that, unless we took action to prevent the abuse, by the end of the decade we could lose roughly £3 billion a year of revenue on capital gains through both capital gains tax and capital transfer tax.

As I understand it, the Government's estimate of the cost of relief is £10 million for the first year, £25 million for the next and £10 million for the final year, giving the figure that the Finance Secretary gave the House. It is important to explain that fact because at an earlier meeting we were told that the relief would cost £25 million in a full year. Stating the figures for the three-year period shows how that figure was arrived at.

The amendment is a fairly limited response to a great of deal of anxiety that was expressed in Committee.

Eight years.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) reminds me that it has taken eight years of Conservative government for that awful truth to come home. Someone in the Treasury suddenly discovered that £3 billion could go down the tubes as a result of that serious miscalculation. The noble Lord made a number of miscalculations, not least about what the combined effect would be of his measures on mortgage interest when associated with the liberalisation of capital and mortgages and the promise of tax cuts, but that is another big Lawson miscalculation.

I strongly support the amendment which gives some transitional relief to individual investors and I thank the Government for that concession. However, it does not deal with the important point of principle at issue here. It is very much like an EC derogation for several years in that it dulls the pain in the short term but it hits one in the end.

Of course the Government concede that the proposal included in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget departs from the intellectual symmetry of the Lawson reforms of 1985. That is self-evidently true, as I made clear in Committee. We feel that it is right to depart from that intellectual symmetry because, although we can see the intellectual rigour of the approach taken by my noble Friend Lord Lawson, experience has taught us that the loss indexation provisions introduced by the 1985 legislation open substantial opportunities for tax planning and avoidance in a way that undermines the yield of capital gains tax.

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for repeating that important point, which he made in Committee with telling effect. Will he explain why it took the Government eight years to discover it?

The Government are still attracted to the intellectual rigour of my noble Friend's case. If it had been possible to design rules for operating a symmetrical approach to indexation without undermining the tax yield, we would of course have preferred to go down that road. Experience of the operation of the principle in practice taught us that that is not possible.

It seems difficult to believe that the avoidance will be so successful, particularly in respect of individuals, that a tax yielding £1.3 billion would, after several years, yield only about £0.3 billion. That stretches the imagination.

My hon. Friend is right that some of the best developed examples occur in the corporate sector, but I gave the Committee the example of the capital-certain bonds being developed in the City, the purpose of which would be to fall just the wrong side of the qualifying corporate bond rules so that they figured in capital gains tax. Loss indexation would be available to them, but they would in practice be capital-certain. People would therefore have the interest on the bond and the indexation available on the capital value of the bond, which value would be virtually certain.

We are members of different parties.

Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman cannot both be right. The one says that we have lost confidence in our proposals; the other says that we are sweeping away the fundamental reforms introduced by Lord Lawson. On this occasion, I side with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, although not with any enthusiasm because I respect the intellectual symmetry and appeal of Lord Lawson's original proposal. But I have to conclude that we have tried it and it does not work.

Will my hon. Friend deal with my first point? How does he explain that a tax that yields only £1.3 billion from the personal sector—if nothing is done —will decrease by £1 billion in two or three years' time? That suggests that everyone will have a tax avoidance scheme—such projections stretch the imagination.

The figures on which the £3 billion yield were based anticipated the yield from capital gains tax and from corporation tax on capital gains, by the end of the decade, as being about £4.5 billion. We anticipated that virtually all the tax from the corporate sector would by then be at risk, and roughly half the tax from the individual and trust sector would be at risk, as a result of the sort of tax planning devices that I have described. It was the application of those two principles to the underlying anticipated yield of £4.5 billion that left us with £3 billion missing and £1.5 billion still coming in.