To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of how the long-term unemployed are affected by Government policies.

The Government have developed a range of measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work. The proportion of those who are long-term unemployed is markedly lower in Britain than the EC average.

In view of the rapid fall in unemployment, is it not the case that the prospects of the long-term unemployed obtaining work are now better than they have been for many years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that to introduce now the job destruction programme of the social chapter and a national minimum wage would be for those who are genuinely seeking work nothing but a massive kick in the teeth?

The aspiration of those who developed the social chapter was to create a social dimension to the European Community. It was a massive raft of legislation under qualified majority voting which would have loaded costs on employers and destroyed jobs. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that there will be no end to the opt-out negotiated by this Government. The Labour party would sell out anything at all in its craven attitude to Brussels.

Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to achieve full employment?

It is my intention that the maximum number of people should be able to participate in work. That means developing a flexible labour market and it means helping people with practical measures from Government. It means establishing policies that enable the country and the economy to grow. It means establishing policies to encourage people to invest in this country and to create job opportunities. It means avoiding the Labour party's technique of trying to mislead the unemployed into believing that a Government can spend their way out of unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage is one of the greatest threats to measures to curb and to overcome long-term unemployment? Does he agree that a minimum wage would not just get in the way of job creation, but would result in the loss of many valuable jobs that exist today?

Yes, it is a complete fallacy to believe that a minimum wage has anything to do with the reduction of poverty. Many people who work on low wages are second or third earners in their households. Those are the sort of jobs that could easily be destroyed by the introduction of a minimum wage, with the result that families who enjoyed the benefit of extra incomes would be made poorer. As the trade unions insist on the maintenance of differentials, the bulk of the resources that would go into establishing a minimum wage would benefit people who were better off and not the people at the bottom.

Is the Secretary of State aware that outcomes show that training for work policies are failing the long-term unemployed, with only one in 10 gaining full-time employment after leaving such schemes? Does he accept that instead of slashing training budgets by more than £125 million, the money should be redirected and targeted at long-term unemployment which remains an unacceptably and disproportionately high part of the unemployment total?

The training for work budget is targeted at the long-term unemployed, who are precisely the people who can qualify for training for work. The hon. Gentleman is on to quite a good point in saying that not enough people are getting jobs or other what we call positive outcomes at the end of their training—in other words, going into other opportunities that are valuable to them. I am determined that that proportion shall rise and I shall get the proportion of those who achieve a positive outcome from their training of one sort or another up to 50 per cent. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that development.

How many of the long-term unemployed owe their predicament to employment consultancies that give advice on how to sack people, such as the JSB Group which is headed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment?

I am not able to give the figure. Every hon. Member is the guardian of his own conscience and, certainly, people should be in the business of removing any beams from their own eyes before they search for motes elsewhere.

If one half of the long-term unemployed on training for work courses are not getting any qualifications at all and more than half the men who come off those schemes go back on the dole, as do a third of women, how can the Government justify cutting the training budget by 20 per cent. and slashing 55,000 chances for the long-term unemployed to go on to a scheme?

Although the hon. Gentleman asked the question in all innocence, he knows perfectly well that the objective of our training for work reforms is precisely to ensure that the training is not only for training's sake, but to get people into jobs and into other opportunities of value. I shall increase the proportion of people who get those positive outcomes. I shall increase the numbers of people who get those positive outcomes. If the hon. Gentleman is attacking that, let him stand up and say so.

By magic?

The hon. Lady says that because she has no understanding of improving efficiency or value for money. That, if I may say so, is what distinguishes the Labour party from the Conservative party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in (a) his Department and (b) the Employment Service agency; what the figures were two years ago; and if he will make a statement.

There are 55,693 staff in the Employment Department group, of whom 44,737 work in the Employment Service agency. Two years ago, there were 61,897 staff in the Department, of whom 47,652 worked in the Employment Service agency.

On International Women's Day, would my hon. Friend join me in welcoming an end to discrimination against women in employment? May I also be assured that there will be no discrimination against men in employment? From the figure that she has kindly supplied, is it not clear that lower unemployment means that fewer staff are needed by her Department and that everyone saves because those people go to other jobs?

Fewer staff are needed because, of course, there has been a fall in unemployment, which should be welcomed by all parties. I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. We welcome moves which reduce discrimination against women and we are committed to eliminating discrimination against women, but, of course, that should not involve, in turn, discriminating against men.

Does the Minister agree that the greatest discrimination is against people with disabilities? Will she tell us, therefore, how many disabled people are employed in the Department and in the Employment Service agency?

The number of registered disabled people in the Department of Employment at 1 July 1994 amounted to 2 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to improve employment prospects in former coal mining areas.

As a result of the Government's sound economic policies and a flexible deregulated labour market, as well as the £200 million special measures package, unemployment is falling in Barnsley and most other former mining areas as it is in the rest of the country.

Is the Minister aware that a recent survey carried out in former mining areas, as he refers to them, particularly in Barnsley, showed that 44 per cent. of miners who were made redundant in 1992 were still unemployed, that 9 per cent. were in training and that, overall, something like 89 per cent. of those miners were worse off, especially those who had taken jobs which paid around £65 a week less than they previously earned in the mining industry? That is a consequence of this Government's policy towards the coal mining industry and towards employment. Those 44 per cent. of people and 30 per cent. of males who are economically inactive in former coal mining areas are the positive outcomes of Government policy. Those are the positive outcomes of the Department of Employment. What will the Government do to restore employment in those areas?

Any change in the economic structure of any locality obviously creates disruption. As has happened in so many parts of the country over many centuries, it takes time for local communities to adapt to new circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the survey and work done by Sheffield Hallam university on the subject—

indicated dissent.

In that case, the answer to his question is no, I do not know anything about the study to which he has just referred. If he would draw it to my attention, I am sure that I would discover that it is based on just as much flawed information as the survey carried out at Sheffield Hallam university.

Has my hon. Friend seen the answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled last week, which shows that in five years the previous Labour Government closed three times as many pits in the northern region as the Conservatives have closed since 1979? In the light of that, is it not a bit rich of Opposition Members to make a great fuss about this Government's record on the coal mines when the Labour party's record is far worse?

The House is no stranger to the hypocrisy that we often hear from the Opposition Benches. As my hon. Friend reminds us, we are well aware that previous Labour Governments closed 313 pits in total and lost 205,000 jobs—far more than have been lost in recent years. British Coal now has a new future in the private sector. Pits are being reopened and people can look forward to greater job security.

Those of us who live in mining communities need no lessons from Conservative Members. Between September 1992 and December 1994, 34,000 miners lost their jobs as a result of the actions of this Government. That amounted to 83 per cent. of British Coal's work force. Labour local authorities have joined British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to try to regain the ground lost as a result of the huge job losses. However, even now the Government are trying to close British Coal Enterprise. What will the Minister do to protect the continuation of British Coal Enterprise and its activities in mining communities? The closure of British Coal Enterprise will see the loss of 400 more jobs while thousands of miners are still on the dole.

The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention the pits that have been reopened since they went into the private sector. He knows as well as I do that the funding of British Coal Enterprise is guaranteed until March 1996 and that its future beyond that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is obviously extremely concerned that the good works of British Coal Enterprise are not lost.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those major countries in the European Union where the level of unemployment is on a clear downward trend.

The United Kingdom is the only major EC country where unemployment has continuously fallen over the last six months, using the internationally recognised and comparable International Labour Organisation figures.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the Labour party's constant bleating about fiddling the figures, unemployment—including youth unemployment—is falling in this country as a result of policies that recognise that businesses best create jobs as a result of low rates and low taxation and without Labour encouraging envy and over-regulation?

Perhaps uncharacteristically, I am on the side of the Trades Union Congress on this one. The figures that I have quoted are the international standard ILO figures, which the TUC said were wholly reliable. Those figures show that unemployment in the UK is falling faster than in the rest of Europe and that employment in the UK is rising faster than in the rest of Europe. The ILO figures, which the TUC supports, show that the unemployment total in Britain is 2.4 million, which is almost exactly the same level as the claimant count which the Opposition say is fiddled. How can they both show the same totals when one is apparently fiddled, but the other is not?

Would the Minister care to tell the House of any areas in Europe where the problem of unemployment is more intense than it is in areas like the Dearne valley and certain other coalfield counties? Whatever the Government may say about the statistics, can the Minister provide evidence that our position is better than that of anywhere else?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers several countries within the European Community, not least Spain where youth unemployment is three times the UK level and overall unemployment is twice the UK level. It is no coincidence that Spain has a Socialist Government and one of the most regulated economies in Europe. As a result of that regulation, whereas Britain has only 5 per cent. casual workers, Spain has 33 per cent. casual workers because employers there cannot afford to employ people within the regulated system. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants for Britain?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what impact the Government's flexible labour market policy has had on the ability of the Employment Service to place people into jobs over the last year.

Progress in achieving a flexible labour market means that a diverse range of job opportunities is increasingly available. That is good news for unemployed people, who are more easily assisted into finding work by the Employment Service, which placed 1.8 million people into jobs last year, an increase of 16 per cent. over the previous year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that considerably more people are in employment in the United Kingdom than in other member nations of the European Union? If she agrees with that point, does she believe that our more flexible regulations contribute massively to that excellent result?

I can indeed confirm that we have a higher participation rate than other major EU countries and that our excellent employment position is owing to our flexible policies—policies which have caused unemployment to fall steadily for two years, which give us among the highest take-home rates of pay and lower than average youth unemployment, which created 220,000 full-time and 83,000 part-time jobs last year, and which put nearly 2 million people into work. We have the second highest percentage of female participation and among the highest number of part-time jobs.

Is the Minister aware that fewer hours are now worked in the British economy than were worked in 1979, that women in Britain have a bigger gender pay gap than women in any other European Union country, and that the percentage of men in employment, which was 93 per cent. in 1971, is now 75 per cent? Does she agree that the Government's version of flexibility means insecure, low-paid employment for increasing numbers of British families?

Over-rehearsed.

Not only over-rehearsed, but largely inaccurate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

I have no current plans for such a meeting, but that is no reason for us to neglect the fact that the number of days lost in strikes last year was the lowest since records began in 1891.

Although there has been a great improvement in industrial relations in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in that sphere as in all others, there is no room for complacency? Does he agree further that employee participation plays an important part in the consolidation of that improvement in industrial relations? Will my right hon. Friend discuss that point when he next meets the Confederation of British Industry?

That might be a good subject for discussion with the CBI. I agree with my hon. Friend that consultation with employees is a hallmark of good employers. The important point is that that should be a matter for employers and employees; it should not be imposed upon them either by Governments or by Brussels. It is extraordinary to see Labour Members wishing to sign up to things like the works councils directive, which would impose a wholly inflexible, wholly rigid superstructure on companies, and thus make them less able to respond to the marketplace. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would want anything like that.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is considerable concern among the work forces of privatised utilities, who see their job opportunities slashed by managements who give themselves massive pay awards? Is that not criminal? Should not the Government take action to stop it now?

I have noticed that customers of the former nationalised industries used to worry day to day and year to year about their security of supply, but that is no longer the case. Whereas in the past, people were afraid that there would be strikes in the gas or electricity industries, on the airlines or in the coach companies—all the important services that were provided to the public—they no longer fear such strikes, because privatisation has improved industrial relations in those essential services. We shall continue that policy in some of the other essential services. Doubtless, by that means, we shall restore industrial peace in those sectors, too.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why there are only 1 per cent. as many strikes now as there were in 1979 is that people on both sides of industry realise that the only beneficiaries from strikes are our foreign competitors? In the increasing climate of co-operation rather than confrontation, is it not appropriate to say that works councils imposed upon industry either by Brussels or, potentially, by the Labour party are a total and absolute irrelevance and a waste of time?

It is worth dwelling for a moment on the figure given by my hon. Friend that there are 100 times fewer strikes now than there were in 1979. In January 1979, there were 10 times as many days lost to strikes as in the whole of 1994. The Labour party had a miserable record.

indicated assent.

There have been only a dozen pieces of legislation. I see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) nodding. Perhaps she could tell us whether the Labour party's policy is to repeal all of the pieces of legislation which have brought peace to British industry.

Does the Secretary of State think that it will improve industrial relations—(Interruption.]

Order. The House must calm down. Members on both sides are much to noisy.

Does the Secretary of State think that it will improve industrial relations at British Gas that its chairman Cedric Brown has had a pay increase which takes his pay up to £475,000? Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that such increases are distasteful and that legislative action may be necessary to prevent them, or does the right hon. Gentleman stand by what he said only last week, that there should be no Government intervention in those matters?

The hon. Lady ought to quote the Prime Minister accurately, as she ought to quote me accurately. That is the courtesy that she owes to every Member of the House. If the hon. Lady can make her case only by misquoting people, we must draw the conclusion that she does not have a case at all.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the United Kingdom have either education or training places; and what were the figures in 1979.

The answer is 1.1 million in spring 1994. This is 84 per cent. of all 16 and 17-year-olds, which compares with 54 per cent. in 1984, the first year for which information is available.

Opposition Members have a sad obsession with job-destroying policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and adding social costs on to employers. Are not the policies which we have adopted—including training and education, the national curriculum, general national vocational qualifications, national vocational qualifications, youth credits, the modern apprenticeship scheme, the accelerated apprenticeship scheme and the schemes adopted by training and enterprise councils—far better? Are not those policies the best way of giving hope and opportunity to our young people for the future?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government have put in place a range of measures so that all our young people—whatever their background or ability—can choose the best way to maximise their talents and to drive forward Britain's economic recovery and skills for the future. Nearly all of the changes have been opposed by the Labour party, which has begrudgingly come round to accept them, because it knows that what we are doing is right in the long term for our country.

How many apprenticeships exist today in Britain?

Apprenticeships at present are a matter for individual industries. There is no national apprenticeship scheme for which records could be kept. The modern apprenticeships scheme that the Government are launching is presently in prototype form and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 18 prototypes up and running. This autumn there will be another 40. By the time that the programme is complete, there will be 70,000 skilled people coming out of modern apprenticeships each year.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Does my hon. Friend agree—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) cannot raise a point of order; it was not his substantive question.

Order. Let us have a little quiet so that we can hear the hon. Gentleman who is on his Feet—Mr. Evennett

Does my hon. Friend agree that the many sixth formers staying on after the age of 16 and the many young people in training constitute a real achievement and a real success story? Does he further agree that that lays the foundation for successful training to be built on by those young people in the future, so that we shall have a well-trained and skilled work force?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right; 73 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in full-time education, compared with only 48 per cent. 10 years ago. That is a tremendous achievement, and must bode well for the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance has been given by his Department in relation to the current operation of the 21-hour rule.

The Employment Service issued guidance to staff in January 1995 on the rule that allows people to study part time while claiming unemployment benefits. The guidance also referred to the 21-hour rule, which is a separate rule in income support.

So why are the Government adopting such a perverse approach towards reskilling the unemployed, first by issuing new regulations by the month to make it more difficult for unemployed people to take up part-time education and training courses, and then by announcing that only 16 hours of guided learning will be allowed under the rules for the jobseeker's allowance? Is that because the Government believe the surreal logic of their own arguments, or because they have not a clue how to run a modern economy, where skills are the key to success?

I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman can seriously be as ignorant of the new proposals as his question suggests. There is no reduction. At present, the 21-hour rule covers both guided learning hours and private study; in future we shall rely on a limit of 16 guided learning hours a week, with as much private study as is compatible with being available for work. There is no reduction—the same number of students will be able to study—and there is no reduction in the cost to us. The hon. Gentleman really should do more homework before asking such questions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the profitable use of time while people are unemployed, especially if that directs them towards achieving the confidence that will enable them to get back to work, is most important? In that light, will she reconsider the very limited amount of notice that volunteers on unemployment benefit are allowed to give to the organisations that use them?

Volunteers can of course already exercise a delay before taking up a job, which unemployed people in general are not allowed to do. So we have already recognised that problem. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that constructive use of time while people are unemployed is important, especially in helping them to acquire skills and experience that can then be used in the labour market. For precisely that reason, we not only encourage volunteering but have made certain that our study rules have been carried through into the jobseeker's allowance so that people can study part time while on benefit. That seems to me an excellent balance to strike.

What advice or explanation would the Minister offer to unemployed people undertaking part-time learning within the rules but who find that their benefits are cut because their fees exceed £100?

It is not the purpose of the benefits system to resource the education system, but a balance must be struck for people who are involved in modest, part-time study that does not impinge on their active job search. If such people could be on full-time or long and expensive courses, that is where they should be, rather than on benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an assessment of the effects of a national minimum wage on the employment prospects of young people

In Belgium and France, which both have a national minimum wage set at a significant level, youth unemployment is, respectively, one and a half times and twice as high as youth unemployment in the United Kingdom. I will make an estimate of the effects of a national minimum wage in the United Kingdom when the Opposition decide the level at which it would be set and what they would do about differentials. I notice that they are laughing at that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to talk about a minimum wage but more difficult to set the level? Does he recall that when President Clinton came to power in the United States he said that he would increase the rate from $4.25 to $4.75 but has failed to do so because he recognises how damaging that would be? Does he further agree that just talking about the minimum wage without setting the level is sheer tokenism and that the Opposition would do well to understand that?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) tittered loudly when my hon. Friend said that Labour had not set a level for the minimum wage. It is also interesting that the Labour leader last week scuttled off to the TUC to say that Labour would not set a level until after the next election. Labour is telling the low-paid that it will wave a magic wand and, at no cost, will increase their standard of living, but it is not prepared to be honest enough to reveal the cost in terms of lost jobs. That is the low level of opportunism and cynicism to which Labour policy has now sunk.

Is the young Minister aware that it is now 20 years since a Labour Government introduced equal pay for women and that the Tories voted against it, saying exactly what they are now saying about a minimum wage—that it would destroy jobs? Is he aware that when the young women working at Marks and Spencer got their extra money they went to Debenhams and bought curtains and that when the people at Debenhams got their extra money they went to C and A and bought children's clothes, thus increasing the number of jobs?

The not quite so young Minister will reply that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in referring to the previous Labour Government because the previous two Labour Governments refused to implement a minimum wage. They, at least, were honest enough to admit that there was nothing they could do about the problem of differentials. I quote to the hon. Gentleman his former colleague, Lord Healey, who only a couple of months ago said on Radio 4:

"Don't kid yourselves—the minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials … and therefore the minimum wage becomes a floor on which you erect a new tower."

Will my hon. Friend ignore the old fogeys in the Opposition and confirm that policies such as the absurd social chapter and the minimum wage are shredding jobs in Europe even as we speak? Is he aware that a large company in my constituency cannot afford to build a factory in France because of such polices and has decided to double its production line in Scarborough instead?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Unemployment in European countries such as Belgium and France, where the minimum wage is set at a significant level, is far higher than in Britain. The situation in the United States is also instructive. For years, successive Governments hardly raised the minimum wage. When he came to power two and a half years ago, President Clinton committed himself to raising it but he has done absolutely nothing about it because his own Labour Secretary, Robert Reich, said that it would threaten the recovery. Even the left-leaning Democratic Leadership Council recently said that the

"Minimum wage is anachronistic, it's a loser, it's got no life".

Will the Minister accept that I am not prepared to be accused by him of tittering? It is puerile—[Interruption.]It is puerile and it demeans the debate.

The hon. Lady was tittering; she is now wittering. She fails to mention that a minimum wage would cost the taxpayer more because it would increase unemployment, as it has in France, Spain and Belgium. If she is serious about that policy—if she is serious about putting a floor under low pay—why cannot she tell the House at what level a Labour Government would introduce the minimum wage, and what she would do about differentials?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve child care to assist women into employment.

We have committed £45 million to the out-of-school child care grant initiative to help create up to 50,000 new after-school and holiday places for school-age children throughout Great Britain.

I recognise that Britain's record in provision for the under-fives is the worst in the European Union and acknowledge that affordable and adequate child care is a major barrier to many women who are trying to work or who want to work longer hours. When will the Government do something to solve that problem, create a national child care strategy and start making some decent provision for 51 per cent. of the people in this country?

I suggest that the hon. Lady starts with her constituency. Perhaps she will welcome in her constituency the Wirral Latch Key scheme, the School House scheme, the Scamps scheme and the Rainbow scheme. When she has welcomed them, she might even smile at what is happening in her constituency.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that female earnings have increased by 30 per cent. since 1990, compared with male earnings, which have increased by only 23 per cent.? Will she further confirm that, compared with 1970, when women made up 36 per cent. of the work force, they now make up 46 per cent.? Are there not, in practice, far fewer barriers to women in obtaining employment than that lot over there would have us believe?

Yes, and it is entirely due to the policies of the Government, which have a greater effect on women than anything that that lot over there ever did.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of a statutory minimum wage on the employment prospects of unemployed people.

A statutory minimum wage would destroy jobs and job prospects. Set at two thirds of male median earnings and assuming full restoration of differentials, 2 million jobs could be lost. Even set at half male median earnings and assuming only half restoration of differentials, 750,000 jobs would be lost.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that a national minimum wage would benefit the richest 30 per cent. of the population more than the poorest 30 per cent.? Does not the adoption of such a policy sit rather oddly with the Opposition's claim that they will be tough on success and tough on the rewards of success?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the major problems with a national minimum wage is that it would benefit better-off families disproportionately because many low-paid people are trainees or young workers who live in families with two or three incomes, so the national minimum wage would increase unemployment among poorer households and increase wealth in better-off households.

I remind the Minister that when the Government abolished the wages councils three or four years ago they advanced the very same arguments. They said that abolition would create more jobs, but a horrendous number of young people are now without jobs. How does the Minister explain that?

The hon. Gentleman predicted when the wages councils were abolished that the wages of former wages council workers would fall; in fact, they have increased slightly faster than the wages of workers in the rest of the economy. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government abolished no fewer than 11 wages councils, affecting no fewer than 600,000 workers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the causes of Britain's current industrial relations situation.

The step-by-step reform of trade union and employment legislation has returned control of trade unions to their members and brought realism to the workplace. The industrial relations scene is better than at any time this century.

How many working days were lost through strikes last year, and how does that figure compare with the one for 1979? How does Britain's strike record compare with that of the rest of the European Union?

Last year only 0.26 million working days were lost in only 178 stoppages. As has already been said this afternoon, that constitutes less than 1 per cent. of the 1979 figure and it is much lower than the averages of the 1970s and 1980s. Our record has been below the European average for the past nine years.

We have made abysmally slow progress with Employment questions owing to a combination of factors, such as long answers, long quotes, long questions and far too much noise. Let us make up for that now.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government's policies have done much to help the leisure industry in this country? So much so—(Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

Sit down.

Who are you telling to sit down? Be careful.

I am telling the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to sit down; I am trying to be helpful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government have done much to help the leisure industry in this country—so much so, that Ladbroke leisure group has been able to award 1.2 million share options to its directors? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a member of the remuneration committee who approved that share option scheme is also Chairman of the Employment Select Committee?

As I said to the House last week, the Greenbury committee is examining executives' remuneration. A number of important issues must be addressed, especially the disclosure of remuneration to directors and ensuring that bonuses and share options reflect the performance of a company. I am sure that practical, first-hand advice of that sort will be useful to every hon. Member.

rose—

Order. I must say to hon. Members that I have taken a Minister to task for less than that; I will not allow Back Benchers to hold up newspaper headlines.

Now that the electricity regulator has finally bowed to months of pressure and has cut prices because of excess profits, will the Prime Minister agree that there should be a thorough overhaul of the regulatory regime of all utilities so that we can be sure that the same thing is not happening in gas, water and in the other privatised monopolies?

As I understand the position, the regulator has decided to have a look at the prices charged by regional electricity companies to consumers. That shows that the regulatory system that the House approved is working and that the regulator is using his powers to act in the light of the information available. I think that the action of the Director General of Electric Supply does exactly that. It shows that he can take into account the latest information. Information has become available since his last review. He is now looking at it again. That shows that the system is flexible and is working.

Surely it shows precisely the opposite. Is not the point that the electricity regulator acted only after the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric exposed the full scale of the excess profits and because of public pressure, not his own internal investigations? Does that not strengthen the case for a review of the system to make sure that the same abuses are not happening in gas and water?

No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point fully on board. He cannot claim at one moment that the regulator has too few powers and a few moments later complain that he is using his powers to deal with the situation that has arisen. New circumstances have arisen in the regulator's mind, and the regulator has used his independent powers to look again at the question of pricing. Those are precisely the powers the House required him to have and he is now using them.

The information became available not because of the regulatory system but because of the external requirements after the bid. Does the Prime Minister not understand that unless he acts firmly to stop the abuses in the privatised utilities—whether they are the pay deals, the overcharging or the excess profits—they will stand as a visible symbol of everything that is rotten in a Conservative Government?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has now managed to unleash his soundbite, but what he is actually proposing would not enlarge but would narrow the authority and options of the regulator. The fact that this arose out of something that the regulator did not determine shows how wide his powers are. That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the regulator should have acted only if he himself had discovered precisely what was likely to happen.

Will my right hon. Friend make it his first priority to travel the country and start a national debate on the importance of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange? Is it not extraordinary that a major political party should spend so much time on clause IV and does it not prove—

Order. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. He is, no doubt, coming to a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Will my right hon. Friend consider travelling the country to establish whether there should be common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

I think the evidence of the past two or three decades will spare me the necessity of travelling the country on that point because very few people who have sensibly looked at the matter do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to seek the abolition of a dinosaur that most sensible people realise has been dead for the past 20 or 30 years. The only surprise is that a substantial number in the right hon. Gentleman's party still do not understand that.

How does the Prime Minister justify the fact that, contrary to the specific recommendations of his own personal efficiency unit, the amount of public money that the Government spend on private consultants has now increased by £130 million to £865 million—sufficient to provide every child in the country with a year of pre-school education? How can the Prime Minister expect parents, teachers and governors to cut, cut, cut, when the Government's record is spend, spend, spend?

The right hon. Gentleman did not address the savings and improvements brought about by the activities of consultants. All that concerns him is making a spurious point that would have been better made about his own Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Somerset. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the record on consultancies, he will find that one costing £50,000 yielded savings of tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.

Did my right hon. Friend note that in the recent debate on utilities many Opposition Members were keen to see utilities restored to the public sector? Is not it an extraordinary definition of monopoly to imagine that in a world in which foreign companies compete globally with our former public utilities, we should not stimulate competitiveness across the world?

Opposition Members may still relish the day when it cost the taxpayer £50 million a week to subsidise utilities so that Ministers could run them inefficiently. These days, those utilities are yielding about the same amount of money each day for the taxpayer. Many utilities are selling their services and expertise abroad to great effect, generating from overseas activities huge sums of money for this country.

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

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

It is three and a half years since Operation 2000 was launched. Is the Prime Minister aware that today fewer than 4 per cent. of directors and fewer than 3 per cent. of senior managers are women? Does he consider Operation 2000 a success?

When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaks in this afternoon's debate, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the improved opportunities for women across a range of circumstances—not least in public appointments for which the Government are directly responsible, where there has been a dramatic improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is some way to go, but a significant improvement has been made in recent years, and I look forward to that continuing.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the document published by the Department of National Heritage last week, "Tourism: Competing with the Best"? It states that tourism could be the largest single issue by the year 2000. Tourism currently employs 1.5 million people, but the report makes it clear that we could do better. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism should have higher priority and that a single body should be responsible for encouraging inward tourism?

I should like to reflect with greater care on my hon. Friend's last point because of regional disparities in tourism in Scotland, Wales, the west country and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right about tourism's importance and the number of people that it employs. In some parts of the United Kingdom—not least, most recently, Northern Ireland—increased tourism is making a material improvement to the local economy.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister recall specifically ruling out three months ago Government action on executive salaries on the ground that it would constitute—I believe that I quote the right hon. Gentleman correctly—"a pay policy for a small number of key executives"? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House last week, does he think that is a policy or is not a policy—or, as usual, does he not know?

I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, would like to let the hon. Gentleman try again, so that he may get his question right. Only one side of the House wants a pay policy for top executives. Labour wants a pay policy for people at the top—a maximum wage at the top, and a maximum wage at the bottom because then it would have the justification for a pay policy right the way down British industry. I am seeking to cope with abuses where they occur. If the hon. Gentleman had read what I said last week, he would understand that.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that education provides an escalator of opportunity for all children? Does he believe that choice and standards would benefit from the abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, all of which are popular? Would not the abolition of grant-maintained schools be particularly harsh on parents who prefer them to schools run by local education authorities, especially in Islington?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that education is one of the areas that gives the greatest opportunity to people. The reforms that we have introduced in recent years extend choice, create a diverse education system and aim to give the best possible education to every child. It is for that reason that we have made reforms right the way through the education system—reforms that have been welcomed by parents and schoolteachers and, increasingly, are welcomed and used by hon. Members in every part of the House.

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

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

During this, the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war, will the Prime Minister today give some consideration to that generation who were prepared to fight and, in many cases, made considerable personal sacrifices in forced labour camps, for example, in Europe and elsewhere? Is the Prime Minister of the view that it is a fitting reward for that generation that they now spend their lives in poverty as pensioners under the Government?

The hon. Gentleman knows the respect that everyone in Britain has for the generation who fought in the war. He will also know what has been done, not just in the past few years but during the past couple of generations, to ensure that their living standards are as high as can possibly be the case.

Not successful.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Not successful." Perhaps he would like to reflect on the number of improvements that we made in 1979 that had not been introduced by the previous Labour Government.