To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for reducing the number of unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will continue to control inflation and Government spending and borrowing. Those policies have reduced unemployment by 558,000 since December 1992 to a level almost 2 percentage points below the European Community average.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that, despite all the rhetoric, the level of public spending is the same as the level that his Government inherited from the Labour Government in 1979 and that his party is now the party of high taxation? Might not that be because it is extremely expensive to maintain the best part of 3 million people who are permanently out of work? Does he now regret advocating policies which have led to mass unemployment?

I am an advocate of policies that will lead to mass employment. Keeping inflation low and keeping control of public spending and public borrowing are the way to ensure that employment is created in this country. The hon. Gentleman has created a reputation for himself as a seeker after truth and justice, but when he speaks in the House on unemployment he is a propagandist and seeks to distort. His party is in favour of higher taxation and higher spending and, therefore, it is in favour of higher unemployment.

While welcoming the fact that unemployment is falling, is that not partly due to the trend for one regular full-time job to be turned into two part-time jobs? Should we not cease to deceive ourselves that unemployment is falling in the long term when in fact it is 65 per cent. higher than it was four years ago?

My hon. Friend should look at the figures that we published last month, which showed an increase over the past year of 221,000 full-time jobs anti only 83,000 part-time jobs. My hon. Friend is too careful a student of the figures to fall in with the propaganda put out by the Labour party, which despises part-time employment even though such employment is often the ladder to full-time employment and also the way in which many people wish to structure their working lives. Even if my hon. Friend had fallen in with that propaganda, the most recent figures show that the number of full-time jobs is rising faster and that they are more numerous than part-time jobs.

Will the Minister confirm that unemployment among ethnic minority groups is running at more than three times the national average? What action is his Department taking to compile evidence of racial discrimination in employment and what measures is the Secretary of State planning to eradicate the imbalance in the unemployment figures?

A series of questions answered recently by, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) drew attention to worrying levels of unemployment among ethnic minorities, which is indeed a problem. My Department tries to address its policies and to approach its client group so that opportunities for those facing discrimination of any sort—including, for example, older workers and those who have been long-term unemployed—are maximised. We shall continue to tailor our measures to provide the most effective help for all sorts of people and for those facing any prejudice, to improve the working of the labour market and to help those people to improve their employability.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a proper understanding of the employment situation requires examination of not only the very welcome fall in unemployment, but the increase in the number of people in jobs? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that an increase in that latter figure is correct?

Yes. For some time the Opposition used to take heart—I use that phrase because they like to look for bad news—from the fact that although the number of people employed was clearly rising, according to the labour force survey, which was the internationally agreed standard, at the same time there was a reduction for several quarters according to the other survey, the work force and employment survey. Now both measures have come into line and both surveys say that there has been an increase in the number of people in work, and also a substantial increase in the number of self-employed. Unemployment is falling, and employment and self-employment are rising, so there is no bad news left for the Opposition: the only conclusion to be drawn is that the economy is doing well under the policies pursued by the Government.

Will the Secretary of State admit that there has indeed been bad news today for the 2,900 Rumbelows staff who have learnt that they are to lose their jobs? What has he to say to them? Will he recognise that there will be no feelgood factor so long as everyone at work in this country feels that his or her job is under threat? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's complacency, which he has demonstrated yet again today, simply remind everyone that the Government are out of touch and do not care?

I have recently read some articles on the national minimum wage written by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) which made me believe that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) had been replaced on the Front Bench. I welcome her back to her place with great relief. However, in all the time that she and I have had dealings I have not felt that statistics were her strong point. Today she has demonstrated again that she will grasp at any piece of bad news that she possibly can. Why did she not tell us that B and Q has today announced more than 2,300 more jobs? Why does she talk only about jobs that have been lost and not about jobs that have been created? It is because she is interested only in creating gloom and in scoring political points; she is not interested in the British economy or in the plight of the unemployed. Why does she not take the opportunity to correct the false impression that she gives and acknowledge that when jobs are lost in some companies they are created in others, and that 226,000 extra jobs have been created over the past year? That is the fact of the matter, and that is what she should be talking about.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read this year's Barclays Business News, which states that last year a net figure of more than 24,000 new small businesses were started? Does he agree with me that—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) would listen, he might hear something worth listening to. Does my right hon. Friend agree that with more than 2.6 million small businesses in this country we need to encourage those enterprises and that the last thing that we want to do is heap non-wage costs on them, as the Labour party would do? Would that not destroy jobs?

My hon. Friend speaks good sense, but I am afraid that he is wasting his time speaking good sense to the Labour party, which is not interested in small businesses, in enterprise culture or in creating jobs in the real world. The Labour party is interested only in propaganda and point scoring. The proof of that, as my hon. Friend says, is the fact that Labour policies for the future are to sign up to the social chapter and destroy jobs in this country, to impose costs on employers and to disregard the warning given by Mercedes-Benz this week that it would have to move jobs out of Europe because of the social chapter. The Labour party wants to move us into the social chapter so that jobs will be destroyed in Britain, too.

rose—

Order. Before we make further progress, I must tell hon. Members that I hope that we shall be able to make more progress. The first question has taken almost 10 minutes.

rose—

Order. I ask Back Benchers and Ministers to be brisk in their questions and their responses. Otherwise it is most unfair to Members whose questions are further down the Order Paper. I want to see better progress made in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from (a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) the Employers Forum on Disability about proposals in the Disability Discrimination Bill to exclude firms with fewer than 20 employees from its anti-discrimination provisions.

Both organisations were among the 39 employer associations which responded, 36 of which did not oppose the exemption.

Have not both the CBI and the Employers Forum on Disability said that it would be wrong to exempt firms with fewer than 20 employees from the measures proposed in the Disability Discrimination Bill? Those organisations include 96 out of every 100 companies and represent 37 out of every 100 people at work. Why is the Minister so far apart from employers, and even further apart from the 6.5 million people with disabilities and their carers?

We always listen to what the CBI says, although not to the exclusion of everybody else. The simple fact is that out of the 39 employer associations and organisations which responded, 36 did not oppose the exemption. That is a massive majority, and we should take note of it. It is interesting that of the employers themselves—as opposed to employer associations or organisations—again, the vast majority did not oppose the exemption, which was clearly spelt out in the consultative document.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at present employers with 20 or fewer employees are excluded from the legislation and that it is therefore perfectly sensible that that should continue? Does he further agree that we should build the new procedures on a sensible and practical basis rather than trying to sweep everything in together?

My hon. Friend is right. The present quota system excludes firms with fewer than 20 employees, which is why we used the same figure in the Bill now being discussed in Standing Committee. My hon. Friend also rightly emphasises that we must be concerned about the overall effects of the proposals on small businesses, which do not necessarily have the resources to be able to study, follow and implement all the minutiae of the legislation. That is why Governments of all persuasions have always given favourable encouragement to small businesses.

Does the Minister take some comfort from the fact that the CBI and the Employers Forum on Disability have taken a positive attitude to the proposed legislation which may encourage the Government to go further down the road?

We are encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of organisations which responded to the consultative document did so positively in regard to the general approach of our proposals. Obviously there was a vast range of different opinions on different aspects of a comprehensive piece of legislation, and those are currently being addressed in the Standing Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for unemployed men in the Liverpool travel-to-work area who have either (a) been unemployed for more than five years or (b) never been employed at all.

In October 1994, there were 5,658 men in the Liverpool travel-to-work area who had been claimant unemployed for five years or more. Information is not available on the employment history of unemployed claimants.

That is an example of how figures are used in an attempt to disguise the seriousness of the problem facing Liverpool. The 1991 census return showed that 44 per cent. of men in the Liverpool district had either not worked for five years, or had not worked at all, but all we get from the Government are measures designed to disguise the fact that they massage the figures. When will the Minister bring forward measures to bring jobs to Liverpool? That is what the people whom I represent are interested in.

I am interested that the hon. Lady says that the Government massage the figures. I have a press release from the TUC which calls the labour force survey on unemployment figures "fully reliable". However, the LFS unemployment total is almost exactly the same as the claimant count, which blows a hole in the Opposition's claim that the claimant count is fiddled.

Would my hon. Friend expect employment in Liverpool to benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage or the adoption of a social chapter? Is it not absurd that those who complain about unemployment would introduce measures which would increase the level of unemployment?

During the 1970s, unemployment in Liverpool rose faster than it has under this Government, and unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) has fallen by 10 per cent in the past year; long-term unemployment is less than half of its 1986 peak, while overall unemployment is more than 34 per cent. down on the 1986 peak. We now have a better record on jobs than the rest of the EC, in contrast to the situation in the 1970s when we were bottom of the EC league table on unemployment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish guidelines on the requirements for behaviour and presentation of individuals seeking work as described in clause 6(3)(b) of the Jobseekers Bill.

We shall in due course bring forward regulations under this clause. Each case will be decided on its own merits by independent adjudication officers. The Chief Adjudication Officer, in accordance with his statutory duty, will give them advice and guidance on applying the law.

Will ex-Ministers, who the Government insist must be allowed to take jobs in companies with which they had dealings while in office, be subject to those behavioural and appearance tests? Was the chief executive of PowerGen, Mr. Wallace, subject to a critical appraisal of his appearance before the Government handed him £1.2 million in the form of tax-free share options? Is not that squalid requirement of a mean-spirited and mean-minded little Bill yet a further example of a Government committed to preserving the privileges of the few while destroying the rights of the majority?

I am sure that the hon. Lady has never sought to be judged on her appearance in any profession that she has undertaken in the past. If people have jobs, at whatever level, they have clearly satisfied their potential employers in terms of appearance, ability and everything else. The hon. Lady's question is therefore wholly inappropriate.

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

The Government are committed to ensuring that training opportunities are appropriate for all young people, including those with special needs.

Does the Minister agree that that reply is totally inadequate when one considers training schemes for young people with special needs? The Harington scheme in my constituency, for example, which has been widely praised by many, including Ministers at the Department, has to struggle year in and year out because its budget is not ring fenced by the training and enterprise council. Is it not time that its budget was ring fenced so that it did not have to rely on a surplus from the TEC? Is it not time that the fine words of his Department were matched by action?

Madam Speaker, I listened to your exhortation for short answers. Had I taken longer on the first one, I could have told the hon. Lady about everything that we are doing for young people with special needs. I could have told her about all the additional financial help available through a number of routes. The training and enterprise council may provide separate enhancement payments for those with special needs. My Department may provide extra funds, and we do so in many cases. Most important, there are special arrangements to pay for low achievement outcomes, in terms of word power and number power, for special needs trainees. I could have told the hon. Lady about the funding pilot scheme now run by the north London TEC showing that the starts and outcomes—based youth training programme includes a commitment to pay premiums for special needs trainees. A range of measures is in place. The hon. Lady is right to identify a group of trainees who need special help, and they are getting it from the Government.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the considerable contribution of charities in that area of training? Will he look carefully at the arrangements being made between TECs and charities? In the longer term, will he consider splitting the training of those who present particular difficulties from the rest of the responsibilities of TECs, which in many cases would be better employed raising the general prosperity of their area?

We recognise the specific and important role that charities play and we have looked recently at how we can assist them in that. We considered the idea of some sort of standardised contract and we are talking to the TEC national council about how charities can be helped in that respect. However, I am not keen on the idea of separating those with special needs as it is a cross-party belief that overall integration into mainstream training and education is, wherever possible, the best way to help those with special needs.

Will not special needs trainees, many of whom need longer periods in training to achieve a successful outcome, be seen as too great a risk—some providers already regard them as such—because the Government's payment by results scheme has forced them to cut corners? When will the Minister take the right action and ensure that those with special needs are treated properly, rather than in the charitable way that he described in answer to an earlier question?

We recognise that those with special needs must have particular attention paid to their needs. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) had done his homework, he would have discovered that in the training for work programme, which goes national with a payment by results system on 1 April, we have specifically ring fenced the number of starts for those with special needs. We are paying substantial premiums for their achievements so that if they are unable, understandably, to get the higher levels of national vocational qualifications they will receive massive premiums for achieving lower NVQs than would be the case for mainstream trainees. Our action is right and proper. On the youth training programme for special needs trainees in the younger age group, we shall be looking at similar measures as we move that programme towards a starts and outcomes funding system at some stage in the future.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he does not know what he is talking about. The simple fact is that we do not have starts and outcomes in the YT scheme, other than in pilot programmes. As I said to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), special arrangements operate in those pilot programmes to protect those with special needs and to provide extra premiums.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that training for young people today, irrespective of whether they have special needs, is better than it has ever been in our history? Does he also agree that it is extremely encouraging to note the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are in full-time education or training?

My hon. Friend properly identifies the tremendous improvement in staying-on rates. That is a tribute to all that the Government have done to improve the range of opportunities for young people. For instance, the development of general national vocational qualifications to provide an alternative vocational route for people to carry on into further education has been a major step forward and a major contributor to the improved staying-on rate. The massive expansion in higher education opportunities is also a great tribute to the Government. We have provided more opportunities for young people than any Government in history, particularly the last Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss representation of workers.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular contact with the TUC to discuss a range of issues.

When the Minister met representatives of my union—Manufacturing Science Finance, or MSF—just before Christmas, he gave no comfort to the workers at G.S. Scott who were dismissed following attempts to gain union recognition when the vast majority of workers in that small company wanted that recognition. Is that not yet another example of the Government attempting to protect the interests of the privileged? Does the Minister accept that in this day and age if the majority of workers want union recognition it should be given by the employer?

There is a fundamental difference between the right to belong to a trade union and the right not to be discriminated against for belonging to a trade union. There is redress—[Interruption.] The union should have advised its members to go to an industrial tribunal, where they would gained some redress legally. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his question to the union leader who failed to give that advice, because redress is available.

Order. Sit down. That is a total abuse of Question Time. I have asked not only for questions and answers to be brief, but that they should be to the point and deal with the substantive question on the Order Paper.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker—

There is no point of order.

The record should be corrected. What the Minister said is not true.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have dealt with the matter and reprimanded the Minister, as well as Back Benchers who take a long time to ask their questions. It is absolutely essential that Ministers should answer the questions that are on the Order Paper or are asked as supplementaries and not to try to sidestep those questions by introducing irrelevant material.

When my hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he mention the subject of Mercedes-Benz, which may well wish to move its manufacturing plants to this country because of the high cost of the social chapter? Given that the TUC seems to believe in the social chapter, is it perhaps left in something of a dilemma?

rose—

Resign.

Order.

It is not only Mercedes; Sabena also wants to move workers out of Belgium because of the high levels of labour regulation. The sooner that our partners in the European Union realise that the more one adds to employers' costs, the more one will cost employees their jobs, the better the job prospects of people in Europe will be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the European Commission's Green Paper on European social policy options for the Union; and if he will make a statement.

The Council of Ministers discussed the Commission's White Paper on European social policy on 6 December. I argued that the Social Affairs Council should concentrate its efforts in future on a positive agenda designed to help member states in their fight against unemployment, rather than on unnecessary and potentially damaging employment legislation.

Given that the Government's papers change colour as often as their policy on Europe, does the Minister recognise that the veto that he used at the Council in December has left the UK very isolated in various areas of important legislation? Is it not a fallacy on his part to peddle the myth that the competitiveness of other countries is being damaged because of regulations? The reality is that the competitiveness of those countries is much greater than that of the UK.

I am surprised that the hon. Lady chooses to make that argument in the week when the head of Mercedes-Benz has made the point that he may have to pull out of Germany precisely as a result of the high social costs that are imposed by the social chapter.

Is not most of European social policy supposed to be built around the protection of people's health and safety at work? Is it not a paradox that we have the best health and safety record in Europe, and one that builds on a tripartite voluntary system which requires no imposition from Brussels?

We have high levels of health and safety protection, and I am proud of them, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the social policies of the European Community are built on health and safety matters. The social chapter is an ambitious attempt to build a social dimension into Europe—that is, to impose very high costs on employers for Governments to develop social policies that they cannot afford and to impose them on employers, and to achieve that by a massive extension of qualified majority voting. Only when they have not been able to achieve that by the social chapter, because of Britain's opt-out, have they resorted to health and safety chapter headings. In at least one case, I thought it to be so wholly inappropriate that I am contesting it in the European Court.

Given the concern expressed by the President of the Board of Trade about the threat to employment growth caused by the divisions in the Government over the European single currency, will the Employment Secretary tell the House whether he continues to believe what he said on GMTV last year—that he does not want a single currency and that the 1999 timetable is unrealistic? Is that still his opinion, or does he agree with the Chancellor, who said last Thursday that Britain might have a single currency by 1999?

I can tell the hon. Lady that that was not discussed at the meeting of European Ministers which was referred to in Question 7. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that, if a single currency is recommended in 1996 or 1997, the United Kingdom will not be part of it and we will not make a recommendation about it to Parliament. I believe that people around the world are concerned about Britain's membership of a single European market, and that is not in doubt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what occasions discussions have taken place between European Employment Ministers on the effects of a minimum wage (a) on young workers and (b) on the long-term unemployed.

There have been no discussions, but the EC White Paper on competitiveness criticises the minimum wage for destroying jobs.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a report, commissioned by the French Government, which found that the minimum wage in France contributed significantly to the much higher levels of unemployment among young people and the long-term unemployed? Does he agree that the social chapter, while equally well meaning, could have the same bad effect on job prospects? Should he not encourage our European partners—all 11 of them—to stage a mass opt-out from the social chapter and thereby create more jobs across Europe?

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is interesting that two European countries—France and Spain—which have a minimum wage of the type that Labour proposes for Britain have youth unemployment levels which are two and three times that of the United Kingdom.

What is the Minister prepared to do for my constituent: a 50-year-old divorced woman who is trying to find work? She is not able to take up work because the only jobs that she can find are low paid and part time and if she accepts them she is then disqualified from benefit and cannot afford to keep herself. What will the Minister do for people in those circumstances?

One of the schemes that we have to help such people is the back-to-work bonus. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may deride that, but it is designed to help such people. Obviously, Opposition Members are not interested in those practical measures.

When considering the interests of young people and others, is it not instructive to draw on our experience of the minimum wage in the United Kingdom? Is it not the case that, in those industries which were formerly covered by wages councils, not only have average earnings been sustained and even improved but the number of people employed has increased?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a further point: a single man—

No, he is not.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures clearly show that employees who were covered by wages councils have seen faster wage rises than has the work force as a whole. They are the facts and if the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) cares to deny them, he will have to produce other facts to counter them.

That was a contemptible and a shabby question from an hon. Gentleman who gets paid £1,000 per minute for a question.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a question to put to the Minister, I will hear it; otherwise I shall call another hon. Member.

Will the Minister accept that we are the only country in Europe which does not guarantee a minimum wage? This is the only Government in Europe who give pay jackpots to the boardroom while there is low pay in the workplace. Is it not the case that, under the jobseeker's agreement, the Government will force people to take employment for £1 per hour or lose their right to benefit?

The hon. Gentleman should check his facts because only half the European Community countries have statutory national minimum wages. If the jobseeker's allowance is such an evil, why does his party not pledge itself to abolish it when it is in government?

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the companies which are actually paying below the £4 level per hour are often those with marginal businesses such as rural sub-post offices and corner shops? Does he believe that those businesses are more likely to stay in business with a minimum wage of more than £4 a hour, or go out of business and destroy even more jobs?

The figures clearly show that only four in 1,000 adult full-time workers earn less than £2.60 and that 60 per cent. earn more than £5.30 a hour. It is also interesting that a single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings would have seen his take-home pay increase by more than 23 per cent. since 1979, whereas the same person would have experienced a fall of 1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. The only time Britain was a low-paid, skivvy economy was not under the Conservative Government, but under the Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his assessment of the impact on inward investment of the United Kingdom's recent industrial relations record; and if he will make a statement.

The turnround in industrial relations records since 1979 has contributed to our remarkable record in attracting inward investment, which has made the United Kingdom the number one location in Europe.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the City of Chester has a remarkable record for attracting inward investment in recent years? Will he confirm that, in the year to last November, some 238,000 days were lost in this country through industrial action, compared with 1979, when 29 million days were lost in that one year? Does he see a direct correlation between those two startling facts?

I congratulate the City of Chester on attracting inward investment and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his part in that. He has always been positive and welcoming and has looked for opportunities for his constituents. I see a direct correlation between that and our performance in industrial relations. To put it graphically, in the first month of 1979, we lost five times as many days through strikes as we lost in the whole of 1993. Those who want the bad old days of industrial relations and disorder restored by returning the Labour party to Government need their heads examined.

The Secretary of State will be aware that inward investment and industrial relations will be discussed at the United Nations social summit next month in Copenhagen. Will he confirm that neither he nor the Prime Minister will be attending that summit, and that a flunky or a flunkette will go instead? While the majority of European, OECD and third-world countries will be sending heads of state and Ministers of Labour, is not Britain once again snubbing the summit and sending a message of patronising indifference to the third world?

The hon. Gentleman gets very agitated about a matter on which no decision has been taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the link between falling unemployment and the structure of the United Kingdom labour market.

During the 1980s, the Government legislated to make it easier for businesses to give 'people jobs and to restrict trade union privileges. In the 1990s, unemployment is falling at an early stage of the recovery. I believe that those two facts are inextricably linked.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that in Harborough, unemployment has fallen consistently over the past few years and is now between 25 and 30 per cent. lower than it was at the general election? Es that not a direct consequence of a deregulated and flexible labour market, the absence of the social chapter and national regulations on the minimum wage?

Unemployment in Harborough has fallen by 739 in the past year—a fall of 28 per cent. It has followed the trend that has occurred throughout the country. That is happening because the Government have deregulated the labour market. We have a higher proportion of the work force in work than any other major economy in the European Community. In the past 15 years, the Government have radically altered the face of the British industrial scene. We have restored the rights of trade union members, returned democracy to those members and ensured a much better environment for job creation.

Is the Minister aware that the British people no longer have any faith in the Government's unemployment statistics or in statistics which compare unemployment in Britain with that in other European countries? Is it not time that we had a common standard across Europe for measuring unemployment so that statistics could be more reliable and the comparisons more valuable?

We have a standard OECD system and its standardised unemployment rates show that unemployment in the United Kingdom is lower than in Spain, Finland, Ireland, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Whatever statistics the hon. Gentleman wants to use, the Government's record on reducing unemployment is better than most in the rest of the world.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those countries that have been most successful in reducing unemployment are those which do not have a minimum wage? Is he further aware that in the United States of America, where the minimum wage has not been increased since 1990 but has been allowed to wither on the vine and is now below United Kingdom benefit levels, employment has increased by some 6 million?

I am well aware of that. I am also aware that President Clinton was elected on a platform of increasing the minimum wage, which he has clearly failed to do. Robert Reich, his finance minister, has admitted that to raise it would dampen the recovery and the fall in unemployment that America has seen.

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

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.

Since the Government's policy has virtually destroyed the manufacturing base of the north of Scotland—including industries such as our pulp mills, oil fabrication yards and a smelter—and, more recently, led to the mothballing of three distilleries, is the Prime Minister prepared to allow the Cabinet to sit back and watch the destruction of our tourist industry as a result of the axing of rail services, both sleeper accommodation and Motorail facilities, to the north of Scotland? Will he, as a courteous man, now instruct the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland to afford the representatives from the north of Scotland a meeting—a request for which was submitted some six weeks ago—tomorrow to discuss those vital issues?

Of course I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady has to say. We are keen to see a successful tourist industry in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady looks right across Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, she will see that manufacturing industry is expanding, doing extremely well, making many things that just a few years ago were simply not made in Britain, and exporting at record levels around the world. In the past year there have been eight successive new monthly records in exports alone.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's support for British agriculture in order to assert that farmers are as entitled as any other of Her Majesty's subjects to earn their living under the law, and that includes selling their young veal calves at a proper market price if they so choose? Will he confirm that causing mayhem at British ports and airports is no way to stop practices in other countries that we have banned here, and that those who do so should take their cause to other countries in the Community and to the European Parliament, not pursue it here?

My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the farming industry and entirely right to stress the fact that farmers have a right to carry on their trade within the law, as does everyone else. I think that my hon. Friend and the House know our opposition to veal crates and of the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to ensure that they are taken out of commission not just in the United Kingdom but right across Europe.

Will the Prime Minister state clearly whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has said that he would wait an eternity before joining a single currency?

I set out in detail the conditions for a single currency, originally as long ago as 1990. I reaffirmed them in some detail last Friday. I made it clear last Friday that not only must the specific Maastricht criteria be met, but that in addition we would require other criteria to be met before we thought it appropriate to consider a single currency. Some years in advance of those being met, it is unwise to say either, "Yes we will proceed," or, "No, we will never proceed."

On Friday, of course, the Prime Minister was generally facing both ways. Indeed, Conservative central office was briefing one message on Friday and Downing street another yesterday. If he will not slap down his Chief Secretary, will he say whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a supporter of monetary union, and who can foresee circumstances in which Britain would join and wants to do so by the end of the century?

I have just set out in great detail precisely the circumstances in which we would find it appropriate to consider whether we should proceed to a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet indicated that for his own party at all. As to unity, we know that 50 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on Maastricht, 40 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 and the Labour party has had seven twists and turns over recent years as to whether or not it is in favour of the European Union. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as a single currency later this year is concerned, we would first require all the specific Maastricht criteria to be met.

Let me put it specifically, then. If those circumstances are met, will the Prime Minister join?

I have just told the right hon. Gentleman. When and if those circumstances are met, we shall look to see whether it is appropriate and in the British interests to join. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether he would join, yes or no? Does he know whether it would be in the British interest? No, he does not. All that he is concerned to do is to trail along the path behind the Euro-federalists, where he feels most happy.

rose—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had three questions. I really cannot call him again. I am sorry.

rose—

Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has had his third question. If he wants to reply—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister has asked him to reply. In that case, I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I think—[Interruption.]

Order. It is most unusual for Prime Ministers to ask the Opposition questions at Question Time.

I think that it is excellent that the Prime Minister is getting into the habit of asking us questions rather than answering them himself. Can I tell him this, though? Until he decides where he stands on that issue as the Prime Minister of the day, his leadership will remain weak, his Cabinet divided and Britain effectively disabled in Europe.

It is interesting to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. It would be more interesting if he ever provided any answers.

Order. This is very time-consuming.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his concept of a European Union of nation states co-operating and working together for their common interests is in touch with the majority view in the country? Does it not contrast starkly with the policies of the Opposition parties, which can be described as a total sell-out to Brussels?

I think that this country has a very deep attachment to the nation state. The European Union that it seeks is a European Union based on nation states—a wider European Union, a free market European Union, a decentralised European Union, and not the federal European Union that the Opposition wish for and their Members of the European Parliament clamour for.

Is the Prime Minister asking us to believe that it is none of his business, and not his Government's responsibility, that school governors across the land are being forced to cut school budgets and sack teachers? Or is he saying that that is a price that our children should be prepared to pay so that he will have room for tax cuts at the next election?

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If he looks, he will see the increased spending on teachers, support staff, books and equipment. He will also see that the Audit Commission regularly identifies significant scope for savings by local authorities—not least Liberal Democrat-run local authorities—and their freedom to transfer more resources to education. The right hon. Gentleman may also learn that authorities are maintaining some 1 million surplus school places. Perhaps next time he asks a question, he will have ascertained some of those facts before doing so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of new guidance relating to appointments to quangos is an extremely positive and welcome advance? Is not the constant criticism directed at members of such bodies bound in time to become a disincentive, and to prevent public-spirited persons from putting their names forward for membership?

Yes, I think that the review will prove extremely useful. It also emphasises that both the number and the real cost of non-departmental bodies have fallen significantly since 1979. As everyone who has examined the matter knows, the Opposition's criticism of such bodies is really based on their dislike of parent choice in schools, their dislike of patient choice for fundholding general practitioners and their dislike of patient choice in hospitals. That is local choice, but they call it quangos. They wish to retain choice centrally now, as they always have.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Education, who believes that a teachers' pay increase could be funded only at the expense of between 7,000 and 10,000 teaching jobs and a spiralling increase in class sizes? How does that square with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at lunchtime today—that extra cash is not available and is not needed? Who speaks for the Government on this matter? More important, who speaks for the children in our schools?

We speak for the children in the schools. That is why we have given their parents choice, why we have given greater choice in schools, why we have produced performance tables, and why we have produced testing. That is why our crusade is for choice not to close city technology colleges, not to close grant-maintained schools, and not to close every element of choice that parents want and children need.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Scots favour the Union between Scotland and England and the rest of the United Kingdom because the Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the UK's population, enjoy far more positions of importance—for instance, in the Cabinet, the proportion is in excess of 20 per cent., whatever the Government—in the military, in trade unions and in industry? That is what the Scots will not give up.

My hon. Friend speaks in a tone that many people will recognise. There is no doubt about the advantages, both to the UK and to Scotland, of Scotland being a full part of the UK. I do not believe that anyone who has studied the problem doubts that for a single second. The talents—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) clearly has not studied it because he does doubt that. That is because he wants an independent Scotland disunited from the UK, in the middle of a European Union where it would have little or no influence, and that would damage the interests of Scots, the interests of Scotland and the wider interests of the UK. That is why his party must never be put in power in any way in Scotland or elsewhere.

Before we begin, I have to tell the House that I must limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes both in this debate and in the next, on passenger services under railway privatisation.

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the 1995–96 financial settlement for schools will, in the words of the Secretary of State for Education, `cause class sizes to shoot up' and 'lead to the loss of thousands of teaching posts', with a consequential detrimental impact on standards and opportunities for young people.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he makes of a council that makes provision for an increase in pay for council bosses but none for teachers' pay or for schools—a council that, on the contrary, cuts those budgets? I refer to Kent county council, which has had a 2.1 per cent. increase in Government funding and is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The £8 million shortfall on the Government's determination of what Kent county council can spend on education—known as the standard spending assessment—is dealt with in terms of Government grants and the capping regime, and that precludes the council from being able to spend the money even if it was able to raise it.

That is not true.

Kent county council—after 20 years—has now, under an alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, opened the first nursery class in two decades and is about to open another eight. It is strange that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) should raise only the issue of financing Kent. The Government are not prepared to provide the necessary spending for the pay increase for teachers, and they are not even prepared to begin to suggest where the money will come from to pay for the much-vaunted promise of the Prime Minister at the Tory party conference that four-year-olds would receive nursery education.

May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? Kent county council was Conservative-controlled for 104 years, not 20.

The Secretary of State pointed out to her Treasury colleagues in the leaked letter just before Christmas that the cuts that we are talking about this afternoon would apply equally to grant-maintained schools as to LEA schools—[Interruption.] That is in the letter, and it is in brackets to emphasise it. The reason the Secretary of State wished to emphasise that point was to ensure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was aware that the favoured schools would not escape the cut, and would be affected by an increase in class sizes and reductions in teacher numbers.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment. The Chancellor said at lunchtime that there would be no reason for cuts if only local authorities were prepared to delegate more of their budgets. Labour-controlled Dudley council delegates the most of its budget to schools, while Tory-controlled Wandsworth delegates least. Dudley delegates 93 per cent. while Wandsworth delegates 82 per cent.

And 13 per cent. in Lancashire.

As usual, an intervention by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) sheds no light on the situation and shows that the didactic education that she received with chalk and talk did nothing to expand her learning and understanding.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall have to give way.

The hon. Gentleman may think that it is funny to have 13 per cent. surplus places in Lancashire, but school governors in my area do not think so because the money spent on those 13 per cent. surplus places should go into the schools. Does he really think that it is necessary to have one bureaucrat at county hall for every 17 teachers in the classroom in my constituency?

Lancashire faces cuts of £24 million in its budget. Every time a local authority attempts to reduce its surplus places, struggles to persuade its community, involves through consultation parents, governors and teachers, and puts the proposals to the Secretary of State, schools that appear to want to opt out to save themselves from rationalisation have permission to do so from the Secretary of State. Remaining schools must then pay for the unfair distribution of capital and revenue resources that flow from that decision, so children in other schools are further disadvantaged. That has happened throughout the country to the point—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way in a moment. I have already given way three times. Unlike some Conservative Members, I can count.

rose—

Which one shall I give way to? Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), as he may shed some light on the situation.

Will the hon. Gentleman apply his own nostrum of honesty to the question by telling the House, when he reaches a logical point in his speech, whether a future Labour Government would spend significantly more across the board or adjust the distribution of SSAs? If so, which authorities would gain and which would lose?

We had it at Prime Minister's Question Time and we have it again now—the Government are now treating the Labour party as the Government and themselves as the Opposition. I have made our position unequivocally clear. If one does away with the bargaining between local education authorities and teachers, excludes governing bodies and schools from the ability to determine what happens with pay and conditions, but then accepts the report of an independent pay review body, one has an obligation to meet the proposed expenditure, unless one is prepared to stand up and say that it is the pupils in schools who must pay the price of that expenditure and the teachers who must face redundancy, instead of the Government.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).

The hon. Gentleman spoke about schools using their resources properly. As he lives in Sheffield, he will be aware that the neighbouring county of Derbyshire has, in the past 14 years, subsidised school meals to the tune of more than £100 million. This year it plans to subsidise school meals by £4 million. Does he regard that as a good use of education money?

My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has just cryptically said to me that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire does not look short of a meal or two. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer, because the shortfall faced by Derbyshire is £17 million.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has just insulted me, will he give way to me again?

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a representative of Derbyshire.

We should recall that, for many years, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and his Tory friends called upon Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council to put up the price of school meals, which were the cheapest in the country. They said that if the county council just put up the cost of those school meals, it would get more money from the Government for teachers and for kids. The truth is that in the past two or three years the cost of school meals has gone up three times, yet Derbyshire pupils get £272 per head less than those in the leafy suburbs of Surrey. That has not done them any good, has it?

I agree with the powerful point that my hon. Friend has made.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it correct for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in the way that he has, saying that he does not believe in state education, when he sent his daughter to a state primary school?

Hon. Members should be careful in their comments across the Floor of the House. They are themselves responsible for the remarks that they make, but I think that they ought to be responsible in what they say.

Let me rephrase that, Madam Speaker. The previous Secretary of State showed his commitment to state education by the way in which he tried to destroy it in everything that he did in every classroom, in the conflict that he created with the teachers and in the way in which he undermined morale and confidence. We knew that we were about to have something different, in a Secretary of State who was sent to bury education.

"All of this"—

"will be in immediate jeopardy if we now offer teachers either a provocatively low pay settlement or acceptable pay levels only at the cost of sharp increases in class sizes."

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way one more time.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the fact that so few of our 14-year-olds reach the required educational standard is partly a result of the mad, doctrinaire socialist ideas of comprehensivisation, and the vast waste in Labour-run local education authorities such as Lancashire? That is why schools want to opt out, to ensure that better resources are targeted directly to pupils, not wasted by Labour-run local education authorities.

The hon. Gentleman shows staggering effrontery. Instead of defending his community's parents against the £24 million cuts that are threatened, he starts abusing and lashing out at everyone around him. What sort of a party have Conservative Members degenerated into when, instead of defending their schools and their pupils, they simply seek someone else to get tough on?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way any more. I will continue my speech so that other hon. Members have the chance to speak in the debate.

"for meeting the challenge of education reform".

"the responsibility of the Government of the day in terms of funding and support for the service".

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

"welcomes the substantial increase in the real level of education spending since 1979; applauds Government policies to raise standards in schools; acknowledges that this year's settlement is necessarily tough but congratulates teachers and governing bodies for meeting the challenge of education reform; and recognises that parents will judge schools above all by the performance of pupils and the quality of teaching and learning.".

Does the Secretary of State agree that the teachers' pay award will be provocatively low, or has she changed her mind since that letter was leaked?

On the pay award, I shall not anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make in due course on the reports of the review bodies.

As the Secretary of State will not anticipate the Prime Minister's statement on the public sector pay award, why will she not anticipate in the House of Commons what the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated on "The World at One" today?

I did not have the privilege of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend on "The World at One" today. I rather wish that I had, because there have been a number of conflicting reports as to what he might or might not have said.

Can the Minister explain to a constituent who wrote to me why £211 less is spent on children in Northumberland than on children in other counties such as Oxfordshire?

I shall address in general terms the hon. Gentleman's comments as I proceed. The following facts cannot be ignored by the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and everyone else.

"about as unbiased as you can get",

"In overall terms the provision of resources is satisfactory".

My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) signally failed to answer my question about the need to slim down bureaucracy in the light of more children moving into the grant-maintained sector. That is certainly true of the county of Kent, where spending is out of control. In March last year, the local authority spent £35,000 on a conference at a luxury hotel for head teachers and the only Labour chairman of the Kent county council spent £1,200 of taxpayers' money on takeaway curries from shops in Dartford.

That would be amusing were it not so shocking. It reminds one of the equally shameful example in Staffordshire where one understands that hard-earned resources have been spent on sending members of a school's staff on relaxing weekends at a health farm.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that it is her policies that are causing stress to so many teachers in the classroom? How can she justify so many schools not having sufficient books, the reduction in teacher numbers when schools have already lost so many teachers and the way in which school swimming, which is now part of the national curriculum, will not be properly funded as a result of her cuts?

I have no doubt that people in Staffordshire, parents and governors, will note that the hon. Lady is in favour of jacuzzi education.

If the ability to spend is increased by 1.1 per cent. and the rate of inflation, coupled with the teachers' pay increase, is more than 2.5 per cent., how on earth can there be a capacity to spend more? In real terms everyone can see that they will have to spend less.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because it coincides exactly with the answer at this point in my speech.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong if, as is the case in Lancashire and other counties, the Government have increased cash resources by 1.4 per cent., for the same counties to cut the delegated budgets to schools by 5.5 per cent? Is not that specifically because they are not making the savings in their overheads at county hall that they should be?

Lancashire seems to be a good example of that kind of practice. I am amazed that our most recent figures demonstrate that unspent school balances in Lancashire amount to £33 million. Lancashire is an important example of how local authorities can exploit opportunities to have more to spend on teachers in the classroom.

If the Secretary of State is citing Warwickshire as an authority whose education budget has benefited from the removal of surplus places, she must also explain why the vagaries of the capping limit and the financial settlement have produced a situation in Warwickshire where, despite removing those surplus places, 200 teachers now face the sack and massive cuts will have to be made in the education budget. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic councillors have united in condemning that financial settlement.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the detailed plans for reorganisation in Warwickshire are not yet agreed, but it is, of course, worth noting that it has had just above the average increase in its standard spending assessment.

Will the Secretary of State give way?