What assessment he has made of the operation of the new provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 setting up the statutory arrangements for trade union recognition. [144527]

The statutory recognition procedure has been in force since 6 June last year, and so far 38 applications for recognition have been received by the central arbitration committee. Early indications suggest that the procedure is working well and is becoming an accepted feature of the employment relations system.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week's TUC report shows that the number of new recognition deals signed by unions in the past 12 months is double that of the year before? In its northern region alone, the Transport and General Workers Union has signed or is in the process of signing 16 new voluntary agreements. Does that not demonstrate that the extreme hostility displayed by the Tories throughout the Act's passage through Parliament shows that the party is as out of touch with the modern employer as it is with the aspirations of ordinary working people, who simply want fairness and protection in the workplace?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He was a very active member of the Standing Committee that considered the legislation and he knows that it aims to bring stability to collective bargaining. Not only do the Tories want to return to boom and bust, but they want to return to the them-and-us situation of the 1980s and 1990s which plunged the country into industrial unrest. The aim of the new procedure is voluntary engagement, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the TUC report published on Monday shows that there have been a record number of recognition deals—159 covering 58,000 workers in the 13 months from November 1999 to November 2000. That is a sign of consensus and of a voluntary approach to these matters. Stability has returned to industrial relations.

Can the Minister explain why the number of strikes called in the past 12 months has increased by over a fifth?

The hon. Gentleman is anxious to return to the days of the Government whom he supported, when industrial unrest was created and trade unions were not recognised. We are now seeing a greater spirit of partnership between employers and employees. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that 44 of the top 50 UK companies recognise trade unions. Working in partnership is the way forward for a Britain with a stable economy and stable industrial relations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that recognised trade unions are important in ensuring that British industry meets its obligation to create wealth without damaging health? Will she consider bringing together trade unions, employers, insurance companies and lawyers in the construction industry, the steel industry and, in particular, the power industry with a view to facilitating the introduction of sectoral no-fault liability schemes for asbestos victims?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that underpins the Government's attitude to industrial relations, which is that the spirit of partnership should be fostered. I shall reflect on his point and get back to him.

If he will make a statement on recent steps he has taken to ensure consumers receive value for money. [144528]

We are ensuring that consumers get better value for money through stronger protection in such areas as distance selling and e-commerce, better advice through consumer support networks and, most important, a stronger and more effective competition regime.

House buyers are consumers. Can my hon. Friend offer them some protection and an honest deal from unscrupulous cowboy builders?

Ultimately, any disagreement is a civil dispute between a customer and a builder. However, colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have developed a quality mark scheme to help consumers find reliable builders and workers in allied trades such as plumbing and roofing. The scheme ensures that quality mark builders are technically competent, possess relevant qualifications and display financial probity.

Does the Minister agree that one of the worst examples of a failure to give business and private consumers value for money is in the banking sector, where consumers are being ripped off by up to £5 billion a year, according to the Cruickshank report? Will he explain how the Government intend to implement the report's recommendation that mergers involving a major bank—such as the present merger between Lloyds and Abbey National, which affects the current account market—will automatically be referred to the Competition Commission? Will he assure the House that the fact that the banks are helping to establish the Post Office universal bank will not lead to their being given an easy ride on competition policy?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, competition matters are judged and decided by the Office of Fair Trading. There will be no automatic referrals. We consider the judgment of the Office of Fair Trading, under the director general, as the most valuable source of information. In most cases, we accept it.

On the issue of ensuring that consumers receive value for money, my hon. Friend will be aware that I presented a petition to the Office of Fair Trading which bore more than 20,000 names. It demanded an investigation into the rip-off involving the holiday fuel prices charged by holiday firms. May I ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading when an inquiry will take place and when we can have the findings that ensue so that we can finally put an end to the rip-off of holiday price fixing, and especially fuel supplements?

Like my hon. Friend, I am determined that holidaymakers should get good value for money. I know that he has been waiting for answers to the questions which he put to the director general in writing last July. Successive directors general have promised him responses. Now that my hon. Friend has raised the matter with me, he can be assured that I will raise it with the director general and ask him to contact my hon. Friend immediately.

But why are the Government undermining consumer rights by persecuting traders who are selling fruit and vegetables off market stalls in pounds and ounces? Why did the Government not even try to extend the directive, which would have permitted the continuing use of pounds and ounces in the way the previous Government succeeded in doing in 1989? The Government did not even ask for that. Why did they have such a warped sense of priority that they failed completely to bring forward their promised consumer Bill, which would have clamped down on rogue and dishonest traders, while at the same time, and instead, they are persecuting honest traders whose only crime is to serve their customers in units which they ask for and understand?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was the Leader of the Opposition who signed up to the directive in the first place. The previous Government agreed with the Commission that twin pricing, so that metric and imperial pricing could operate alongside each other in shops, would be phased out in 1999, but the Labour Government secured a 10-year extension to it. It is indicative that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who has a much bigger voice than appetite, could manage only a quarterpounder—he could not manage even a Big Mac.

What recent discussions he has had with the UK tyre manufacturing industry regarding UK production. [144529]

As the main tyre manufacturers are major inward investors into the UK, the Department keeps in close contact with them both at a regional and national level in the UK.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Michelin announced last year that the production of tyres at its Stoke factory would cease. He will also be aware that over the Christmas and new year period, cuts in production and output were announced by Goodyear at Wolverhampton. Does he recognise that in my constituency, where there is a Michelin factory, and in others there is considerable concern about the future of the tyre industry? Will he give an assurance that he believes it is essential that we continue to manufacture tyres in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is right. Global restructuring has obviously affected some British companies, and Michelin is but one of them. I remind the House that tyre production was worth in excess of £1 billion in 1999, and there were about £800 million worth of exports. There are still more than 8,000 people employed in the industry. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and the Department will be commissioning a competitive study to examine the entire rubber industry, and especially the tyre sector, where electronics are playing a greater part in production. With our research establishment, we want to ensure that we are at the leading edge of technology. Companies such as Pirelli are showing the way by introducing a robotics line in the UK. I think that we will be moving up the value-added chain in the tyre sector.

Given the importance of exports to the UK tyre manufacturing industry, and given that since its introduction two years ago the euro has declined sharply against the pound sterling, should not the policy of the Government, on reflection, have been to try to ease the burden of taxes and regulations on the industry, rather than bringing about the exact opposite?

The way in which the Government have assisted industry, by creating a strong macro-economic framework and, at the micro level, introducing tax advantages for many parts of our manufacturing base, has been welcomed by manufacturing, including the tyre manufacturers. Three of the five major manufacturers of tyres are in the UK. They look to the Government to give the lead, as we shall do, on a foresight programme to develop new technology for those industries. The euro has not affected the global reorganisation that Michelin and others are undertaking. We want to help such industries to manage in the most effective way the changes involved in globalisation.

But does not my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that if a company such as Michelin closes down tyre production in the UK, or General Motors closes down car production, or Orange behaves badly as a telecoms operator, we should encourage the British consumer to be discriminatory, to buy products that are manufactured in our own country, to favour industries that stay and manufacture in the UK, and to penalise those that do not?

I do not think that in this day and age that would be the right way forward. We look to the consumer to buy the best quality at the best price. The Government support the continued management of the globalisation of trade through organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. I remind my hon. Friend that in the past decade, that policy has enhanced world trade by 25 or 26 per cent. We believe that that is the way to go—to expand the global economy in a managed way that will produce a good result for the consumer. We are doing that through leading-edge technology in many industries.

What the cost of setting up and running the Post Office universal bank will be to (a) the Post Office and (b) the Government. [144530]

Universal banking services will be funded by the Government and the banks. Until the full details of universal banking services have been settled, it is too early to say what Government support may be required.

Not content with attacking people who sell in pounds and ounces, why are the Government attacking another group of traders—sub-post offices, which are shutting at the rate of almost two a day because of the Treasury-inspired decision, which the right hon. Gentleman's Department should have stopped, to remove about 40 per cent. of their income which they derive through the present system of encashment of benefits and pensions at post offices? Why has the right hon. Gentleman done nothing to stop that, and why will he not even tell the House the cost of his alternative plans? We know that the costs are mounting. Why does he not tell us what they are? If they exceed the eventual Treasury savings, why does he not just call the whole thing off and permit the vital local network of post offices to go on serving its customers and its local pensioners as it always has done, without the additional and wholly unnecessary threat from the Government?

Perhaps the House would like some facts, rather than relying on the right hon. Gentleman's prejudice. The highest rate of post office closures took place under a Conservative Government. Automated credit transfer, which the right hon. Gentleman blames for closures, will not be introduced until 2003 and has nothing to do with the present situation. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would applaud the fact that on 20 December the six main high street banks reached an agreement with the Government for universal banking services. I am confident that within the next few weeks we will sign a memorandum of understanding with those banks, and with other high street banks as well. What the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept is that the Government are giving new hope and a new future to the post office network. He does not like that, but that is the reality, providing new banking services for consumers which will also benefit the network.

I urge my right hon. Friend to be cautious about the term "universal bank". I do so on behalf of the Universal building society based in Newcastle in my constituency, which, I believe my right hon. Friend is aware, is concerned about that.

I congratulate the Government on their initiative in creating a payment method in the control of the Post Office which can deliver benefit payments and make direct debit payments, making the payment of bills cheaper for a much larger number of people, but I urge my right hon. Friend to be a little cautious in his dealings with the high street banks, which may well use this as an opportunity to secure a deal that will not be favourable to the Post Office and its prospective customers in future. When he drafts the memorandum of understanding, will he be careful to avoid a rip-off by the high street banks?

I take counsel from my hon. Friend. We shall need to look carefully at the details of the agreement that we enter into with the high street banks. The important point is that, as a result of the agreement that we have struck, two types of bank account will be operated through the Post Office, both providing a Post Office-based solution. There will be the basic bank account, provided by the banks themselves, and a Post Office bank account. The good news, particularly for people on low incomes, is that both accounts will offer direct debit facilities with utilities, which will lead to a reduction in the amount that individuals pay. Most of us are aware that families on low incomes, who at the moment do not have such benefits, pay a disproportionately high share of their income in fuel and other utility payments. As a result of this initiative, the Government will reduce those costs and ensure that many people who at the moment are financially excluded will have the benefits that most hon. Members simply take for granted.

In his negotiations with the banks, the Secretary of State must have suggested a figure of public money that the Treasury was willing to make available to the universal bank. That figure cannot be commercial in confidence because, clearly, it is public money. Surely the Secretary of State can now share with the House the amount that the Government are prepared to commit to ensuring that the universal bank is a success.

We want the other banks to come alongside the six that have signed up, because that will mean more income for the Government, so the negotiations are not yet complete, but when they are, yes, of course, that information will be made available to the House. Those negotiations have not yet been concluded, so most right hon. and hon. Members will understand why that information cannot yet be disclosed to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many car workers will want to use the Post Office's banking services, and will he take this opportunity roundly to condemn CGNU for its decision to ban the sale of mortgage protection insurance services to MG Rover employees? After the chairman of Rover has been to see the company, will he haul it in to ask it what it thinks it is playing at?

I hope that when CGNU has had the opportunity of hearing from John Towers at first hand, it will be able to reconsider its policy on that matter.

In response to a question in December, the Minister said that cost would be a consideration in choosing the software system for the universal bank, implying that the cheapest system might be chosen. As there have in the past been many high-profile examples of computer systems failing, will he assure the House that the system chosen will be the most effective, and that cost will not be the deciding factor? Who will be responsible for the universal banking system—the Post Office, the banks or the Government?

I think I told the House that cost would be a factor to be taken into account; the situation would be rather unusual if that were not the case. However, it will not be the only factor. We want to achieve value for money, which will involve looking at the quality of the service to be offered. Universal banking services will be a post office-based solution, and the memorandum of understanding will state clearly the various responsibilities of the key stakeholders—the Government, the Post Office and the banks themselves. If the hon. Gentleman can wait just a few weeks more, we will be able to publish the memorandum of understanding, and he will be able to see the details.

The important point for the post office network is that, as a result of the Government's initiatives, there will be universal banking services, every post office will be computerised by Easter, and Government general practitioners will start in pilots in March this year. The Government are acting for the Post Office, which is in total contrast with the approach of the Opposition, who simply let the market determine what would happen to the network and did not give any real hope for the future.

What recent representations he has received on the proposed European directive on information and consultation. [144531]

We have received various representations on the proposed European directive. The Government remain opposed to the directive which, we believe, contains a number of weaknesses. However, we believe that the time is right to consider our own United Kingdom arrangements in that area. I have therefore written today to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, inviting them to take part in a review of existing collective redundancy legislation and, in particular, to consider what more should be done to promote effective consultation.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer, and am very pleased that my question elicited that constructive announcement. However, does he accept that, in the United Kingdom today, when workers' livelihoods are at stake in negotiations involving their employers, they really ought to know and be consulted about that, rather than first hear of their redundancies on the morning news bulletin? Will he give an assurance that the process that he described will result in a law that makes good practices on consultation and information routine everywhere in Britain?

I agree that it is simply unacceptable for hard-working and dedicated workers to be kept in the dark about the future intentions of their employers. We therefore need to engage constructively with both sides of industry, which we are doing by inviting the TUC and CBI to participate. I am confident that they will both respond positively, as it is not in anyone's interest to have a situation in which the work force do not feel that they are part of the undertaking for which they work.

Yesterday evening, I had the pleasure of helping to launch the TUC Partnership Institute, which aims to bring together both sides of business in a constructive way—not as a soft option or a quick fix, but as a way for both sides to work together. That is a different approach to the workplace, which we have tried to create with the legislation that we have put through. It is about moving away from the conflict that the Opposition tried to promote in the workplace; it recognises that we will achieve a lot more if we work together in a real sense of partnership and consensus.

When the Secretary of State next visits Europe, will he have a word with our continental partners about how they implement directives, and especially this directive? On the continent, people have a healthy, not cynical, attitude to European directives, and believe that they are meant for guidance. For instance, one can go into any marketplace in France and sometimes hear market traders hurling out their wares in pre-revolutionary weights and measurements or livres. Why not? Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a bit wide of the question.

I would not have expected anything else of the hon. Gentleman. We have looked carefully at the proposed European directive, which is flawed in several important areas and is not an appropriate vehicle to be imposed directly on the UK System. For example, our whole system of corporate structures is quite different from that on the continent. However, in many respects, the directive reflects the continental system of corporate governance, not that in the United Kingdom. The directive is not appropriate for several reasons, but the issue is important and we should deal with it in our domestic setting.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the review of workers' rights to consultation. I hope that the review will prompt fresh legislation, which might be called the Vauxhall workers Bill. Such legislation should ensure that no other workers suffer the agony of being told by telephone or radio that their jobs are to go and that no other employer treats workers as shabbily as General Motors treated the Vauxhall workers at Luton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that workers have continuing consultation and are provided with adequate information, so that proper partnership and dialogue are in place before closures occur, rather than afterwards?

I was grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to see me before Christmas a number of people from the Vauxhall work force at Luton who had been affected by General Motors' decision. They made a number of important points, but their main point, which they constantly pushed, concerned the way in which General Motors had treated them. Just over two years ago, they had entered into a partnership agreement, but the company had not honoured it. They felt that they should have been involved in the final decision. Those factors, as well as other incidents of which hon. Members are aware, have been a key driving force in our decision to launch the initiative announced today. It is unacceptable for people to learn about their fate on a local radio news station. That is not the right way to do business at the beginning of the 21st century; there must be a better way. In discussions with the TUC and the CBI, I want to find ways in which we can map out in the real spirit of partnership an approach that is appropriate for the United Kingdom.

There is, of course, a world of difference between the Government introducing legislation and the European Union poking its oversized nose into the matter. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in addition to being opposed by the Government, the present form of the directive is also vigorously opposed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the British Chambers of Commerce? Is he aware that his predecessor, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made a solemn pledge in front of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November 1998, when he said that the British Government would prevent the introduction of the directive in this country? Does he understand, therefore, that if the Government now sell out to the German view and accept the directive's application to companies with only 50 employees, it will be the latest example given by them of perfidy and betrayal in respect of corporate business?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would speak up, so that I can hear him.

The country will have heard him.

I pity the country.

We have made it clear that we share the concerns about the detail of the directive that have been expressed by many of the organisations mentioned. However, engagement by the work force with the decisions that are taken by their company is an important issue that must be addressed. We do not agree with the detail of the directive, but we feel that it relates to an issue that can be dealt with in the United Kingdom setting. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) agrees that such an issue exists, he should welcome the fact that we are dealing with it in domestic legislation. That is what I am announcing today. There is an issue that needs to be addressed and I think it can be dealt with more quickly and effectively in the domestic setting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the treatment of the Luton workers caused a great deal of anger among Labour Back Benchers and has given rise to a growing view that the Government should throw their weight behind the European directive, notwithstanding its flaws? I am very pleased to learn from him that the Government are taking the matter seriously. We will want to consider his proposals very closely.

It is only right that that should happen. Some of the European directives, including the works councils directive, which we have endorsed, contain flaws and are not working as effectively in industry as we would like them to. There are instances of similar problems elsewhere. When General Motors made its announcement about Luton, it also announced the loss of about 2,000 jobs in Germany.

The work force there was not consulted or given information about the decision. The system in continental Europe does not work as effectively as most of us would like. It is therefore more appropriate to consider what is needed in the United Kingdom domestic setting and take suitable action.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that no legislation is needed? Will he confirm that the record that successive Governments achieved over 20 years through our flexible labour market was envied in Europe, and that industrial relations should be tackled on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee?

I think there is no problem with a flexible labour market, provided that minimum standards are attached to it to ensure that individuals are not exploited. The Conservative party tried to take us back to the Victorian approach to industrial relations, of master and servant. Conservative Members continue to support that. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is open about it, as can be seen if people take the time and trouble to read his writings on such matters. The Conservative party wishes to return to the master-servant relationship.

However, the Labour party believes that minimum standards, such as the rights to paid leave in a family emergency, to paid holidays and to a national minimum wage are basic entitlements in any decent, civilised society at the beginning of the 21st century. We are providing those entitlements; the Conservative party would take them all away.

What assessment he has made of the recent performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England. [144532]

The performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west is being continually assessed by markets operating in conditions of free and fair competition.

The Government are providing the economic stability, which I mentioned earlier, that allows companies to plan ahead with confidence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that output, exports and employment have fallen in the past four months in the north-west of England? BAE Systems is threatening thousands more redundancies. Things are therefore becoming difficult, to say the least. Bolton has suffered wave after wave of engineering redundancies and two textile factories have closed recently. It is crucial to tackle the scattering of redundancies constructively. What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me that he will protect the vital north-west industrial base?

The Government have been doing that through several measures since we came to office in 1997. As my hon. Friend knows, we asked the business-led regional development agencies to consider the real structural weaknesses in the regional economies. Those are now beginning to be addressed.

I remind my hon. Friend that the number of manufacturing jobs has increased. For example, approximately 7,000 jobs have been created in fibre optic communications; BAE Systems created 1,700 jobs in Wales. The picture is not all doom and gloom. My hon. Friend knows that more people are in employment now than for many years. The strong macro-economic framework that the Chancellor has created for manufacturing bodes well for the future.

That does not mean that we are complacent; we know that we must move up the value added chain. The regional development agencies and Government offices working with regional partners are addressing those matters.

The Minister says that it is not all doom and gloom, but there is too much doom and gloom in manufacturing in the north-west. Last year, there were several hundred redundancies in east Lancashire alone. There is currently the prospect of perhaps 2,000 job losses in BAE Systems. We have been told that they will probably fall on the military side. That will affect Samlesbury in my constituency, and Warton, which is not so many miles away. The ripple effect on contractors and small businesses in the area will be devastating. What action will the Government take to ensure that those manufacturing jobs are protected?

Even as recently as two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was lobbying hard for the Hawk in India, and we are hopeful that there will be an order from there. In the wider context of BAE Systems, it is a changing scene and we must manage change. BAE Systems is one of the better companies in this country, and is in constant dialogue with the Government. We can assist it in developing technologies and ensuring that the skills base is commensurate with its needs. We must manage change in these modern, globalised times, and we will do that with responsible employers. I emphasise again that there are more people employed now than there were in 1997, when we came to power.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work force and management at Jaguar Halewood on the edge of my constituency—it has its front door in my constituency—which is bucking the national trend in car manufacturing and has just taken on 500 extra workers to build the X400? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that manufacturing on Merseyside is in a very healthy condition?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I remind her that in 1997 £3 billion was invested in car manufacturing in the United Kingdom, which created 9,800 new jobs. Jaguar has been part of that, as my hon. Friend said. Success is being achieved, especially on Merseyside, where partnerships are working well.

It is understandable, with a general election coming, that the Minister's answer had a tad more spin than substance. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) put his finger on the problem. Unemployment is increasing in the north-west in sectors such as aerospace, textiles and food processing, in which there have been serious job losses. Is the Minister aware that the TUC has extreme concerns about trends in the area? Is he also aware that the CBI, in its latest survey, says that the north-west has had the second greatest loss of business confidence? Is he not worried, like us, that the Government are creating a north-south divide?

When will the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry stand up for manufacturing and argue against the raft of regulations that is driving business down? When will they stand up for the sector in the face of the climate change levy, which will cost thousands of jobs? When will the Minister speak up for manufacturing?

I do not know whether a "tad" is imperial or metric: perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us how he measures it. Clearly, he has forgotten what was happening three years ago when we came to power and there was real concern in the north-west. What has happened since? Yes, we have increased employment in the north-west. Yes, with partners there, we are finding solutions to the long-term problems with which the Tories left us. We need no lectures from the Opposition on manufacturing and the development of the economy.

What plans he has to reform the method of setting the figure for the national minimum wage. [144533]

We have no such plans. The Government have confidence in the independent Low Pay Commission. As the minimum wage is here to stay under this Government, we have decided to make the Low Pay Commission a permanent body.

Clearly everyone welcomes the principle of a national minimum wage, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it, but does the Minister agree that the current level is far too low? It is extremely difficult for anyone to live and survive on that level of pay. Would it not be better if the national minimum wage were immediately raised to £5 an hour—which would be something approaching a wage on which people could live—and thereafter increased in line with earnings, rather than left to a quango to decide? The poorest workers could then share in the rising prosperity of the rest of the workers in this country.

My hon. Friend should not underestimate the positive effect that the introduction of the minimum wage, even at its present level, has achieved. The figures that the Government submitted to the Low Pay Commission in our evidence show clearly that, for the first time in many years, the bottom 10 per cent. of income earners have had a higher increase in their average earnings than the top 10 per cent. Earnings in the north-east and Wales—traditionally low-paid areas—have increased by a larger amount than those anywhere else in the country, so real benefits are coming through.

I ask my hon. Friend to consider the remit that I have given the Low Pay Commission for this year, which makes it clear that when the commission considers an increase, it is not restricted to considering inflation. This year, it will also be able to take into account the increase in earnings.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that self-employed people such as sub-postmasters and postmistresses are not covered by the minimum wage legislation? A Post Office report sent to Members of Parliament shows that the Government's decision to force pensioners and others to have their payments paid into a bank will result in a £550 million loss to the sub-post offices, and that 20,000 sub-postmasters and postmistresses will find their incomes driven below the level of the minimum wage—unless the Secretary of State can replace that money.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, in response to an earlier question, that the maximum that the banks will be coerced into paying is £125 million? Will he tell us by what authority he will require them to pay that, and whether all the other money will come from the taxpayer—

Order. That does not have a lot to do with the minimum wage.

It has a lot to do with it.

Order. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman that it does not have a lot to do with the minimum wage. I call Mr. Davidson.

Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware of an economic collapse following the introduction of the minimum wage, of the kind predicted by Conservative Members? That certainly does not seem to have happened in my part of the country. Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging for the level of the minimum wage to be raised, so as to reduce the amount of Government expenditure, such as the working families tax credit, that effectively subsidises bad employers? We should not be paying out Government money to subsidise poor employers.

May I also say that I deprecate those who would try to hold down the level of the minimum wage to £5? It really ought to be far more than that.

My hon. Friend is as generous as ever in these matters. It is probably better for the Low Pay Commission to consider any increase in the light of the labour market and the economic conditions at the time.

It is a bit rich for Conservative Members, who campaigned against the introduction of the national minimum wage, to be critical when certain groups are not included. The important point, which reflects points raised by my hon. Friends, is that the national minimum wage under this Government is here to stay. The Low Pay Commission will be there to recommend increases when it is appropriate to do so. We must ensure that the successful way in which the provision has been implemented since April last year can be continued, and that millions of families can continue to benefit from having the dignity of work that is properly paid, and having a safety net below which no one should fall in terms of the income that they receive for their hard labour.

What guidance he gives to businesses about protection of their intellectual property; and if he will make a statement. [144534]

Advice on intellectual property matters is delivered by the Patent Office to a wide audience of inquirers, including business. The Patent Office produces a comprehensive range of literature and has a well established central inquiry unit. Guidance is also available in downloadable form via the internet—if the House can contemplate putting up with such a vile adjective as "downloadable".

Intellectual property theft is estimated to cost industry and business about £8 billion a year, and there is also evidence of a link with organised crime. The Government consulted on this issue 12 months ago and said that they would introduce legislation to strengthen the legal position. Will the Minister say when he intends to do so?

We certainly have been trying to pull together all the enforcement agencies and have formed the Anti-counterfeiting Alliance, in which intellectual property rights play a big part. We shall certainly legislate when we have finished reviewing the situation, although views and perspectives on intellectual property rights in developing countries are different from those in the advanced and industrialised world. However, we are mindful of the dangers of not tightening up intellectual property safeguards as the scams multiply out there in the marketplace.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply because I want to ask about consideration of the new intellectual property rights legislation. Will he ensure that we re-examine the definition of what constitutes intellectual property and separate design from discovery? In particular, I should be grateful if United Kingdom legislation did not go further down the path that has led to the exploitation of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, where intellectual property rights and patents are being used to deny access to medical care to the millions of HIV sufferers in sub-Saharan Africa.

We are very keen that intellectual property rights should accrue to people who have developed new products honestly and as a result of scientific endeavour and engineering expertise. We are certainly not in the business of allowing any multinational corporation to exploit any terrible situation, such as that which my hon. Friend describes, in Africa or anywhere else.

What assessment he has made of the cost of regulations and directives emanating from the European Union on small business enterprise in the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [144535]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all legislation has to undergo a regulatory impact assessment, which does not differentiate the sources of that legislation. Recently revised guidelines on RIAs emphasise the need to think small first in drawing up regulations. On the European aspect, the Government have been successful, through their policy of positive engagement in Europe and through the Lisbon economic summit, in developing the charter for small business, which puts considerable emphasis on the need to improve the regulatory environment not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe.

Small businesses are the engine for economic growth in this country, but is the Minister aware of the on-cost to them of enforcing the myriad rules and regulations coming from Europe? That makes us much less competitive than many other European countries, which do not enforce the rules and regulations on their small businesses as efficiently and effectively as we do. Will she consider perhaps introducing a local appeal mechanism so that small firms that feel aggrieved by officialdom and the enforcement of regulations can appeal to the local magistrates court for a view as to whether rules and regulations from Europe are being over-zealously pursued?

The hon. Gentleman suggests yet another layer of bureaucracy and yet another on-cost for small firms. He seems to have failed to notice that employment in this country is at its highest, at just under 28 million. A million jobs haw been created since May 1997 and nearly three quarters of people of working age are employed. The data on VAT registration suggest that business start-ups are at historically high levels. That is a consequence of the economic stability generated by Government policy and a consequence of the move towards completing the single market.

Single market legislation alone has created an environment whereby there is one set of rules instead of 15 different sets for 15 different countries. The Government are committed to reducing the regulatory impact on small firms and to ensuring that small firms in this country can benefit from the biggest domestic market in the world—the European Union, which has 350 million consumers.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Opposition Members and small firms that those who whine and bleat that regulations are wrong per se are themselves wrong? A lot of the regulations that we must insist on keeping protect health and safety and basic, fundamental employment rights. Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and those who claim to represent small firms have got it wrong if they are prepared to sell the basic rights of ordinary workers?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Conservative Members are anxious to concentrate on the costs of regulation; they never concentrate on the benefits. Every time a consumer picks up a can or packet in a supermarket and sees a sell-by date, it is a direct consequence of our membership of the European Union.

We should look objectively at the levels of regulation in this country—regulation that helps people to enjoy a much better standard of living. A regular Institute of Management development survey asks businesses to describe their perception of regulation in different countries. The latest results, for 1999–2000, show that the United Kingdom ranks second among G7 countries in terms of its regulatory environment, just behind Canada and ahead of the United States.

We impose sensible regulation, and it has benefits. Yes, there are costs, but we will reduce them, and we will certainly ensure that the people of this country enjoy the benefits.

As I draw myself up to my full imperial height of five foot six, and a quarter, may I request from the Minister an answer that we failed to secure from her hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs?

The Minister's noble Friend Lord Haskel has said:

the Government do not intend that people shall be locked up simply because they do not use metric units of measurement … It is where local authorities find evidence of fraud or the consumer being misled that such matters can be brought before the court.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 742.]

Was the Minister's colleague right? Without giving a judgment on the precise details of the Sunderland court case, will the Minister none the less agree that it results from an absurd and unnecessary prosecution? There was no consumer complaint, and the only victims in the case are freedom and common sense.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise the matter, not least because it is still before the courts, but also because the regulation was introduced by the Government whom he supported.

I am happy to rise to my full height of 1.6 m, which is 5 ft 4 in—and as you will know, Mr. Speaker, "guid gear comes in wee bulk".

What measures he is taking to ensure the liberalisation of the energy market. [144536]

The Government have completed the passage of the Utilities Act 2000. We seek to secure full competition in the supply of gas and electricity and in the generation of electricity, with the benefits being passed on to consumers, while protecting disadvantaged customers and the environment.

I know that, especially in cold weather like this, my right hon. Friend shares my anger about the millions of households left in fuel poverty by the Conservative Government's neglect of that important policy area. What steps is she taking to ensure that the liberalised energy market works as well as possible for the fuel poor?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of this Government's first moves was to reduce VAT on fuel, a particularly punitive tax that was imposed on the poorest members of society. There are 35,000 excess deaths in winter that are attributable to the cold. That is why ending fuel poverty is a priority for the present Government.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the benefits of competition are not yet fairly shared by everyone. The Government are addressing that in a number of ways: there is Ofgem's social action plan, and several industry initiatives have been taken. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today announcing a new initiative from the energy company Innogy—a £10 million programme called "health through warmth", which will potentially help more than 20,000 households in England and Wales to make their homes more energy-efficient so that they can stay warmer at lower cost. [Interruption.] You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that Conservative Members have no interest in these matters. They had no interest in them for 18 years. This Government have not just an interest, but a commitment.

Many in the electricity and gas industries attribute the recent doubling of the wholesale gas price to the interconnector, and to the Government's failure to achieve a liberalisation of the gas market in Europe; but given the gas price increase, how helpful does the Minister think it is to British industry to make it suffer the additional costs of another new tax on its energy bills from 1 April this year, following the imposition of the climate change levy?

If the Minister really does care about the competitiveness of British industry—and she should note that employment has fallen this month, for the first time—should she not join us in calling on the Treasury to scrap this expensive and highly damaging new tax?

The Government have been keeping a close watch on the progress of gas prices in the past few months, and if there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, we shall not hesitate to take action on it. As for the climate change levy, the hon. Gentleman seems to ignore completely the responsibilities that we have not only as a Government but as members of society to ensure the sensible and most efficient use of energy. For that reason, there has been extensive consultation with industry. My hon. Friends at the Treasury have received numerous representations from intensive energy users and others on the climate change levy.

The hon. Gentleman should be honest with the House on what actions Conservative Members are prepared to take to ensure that the environment is protected for the future and that we have a truly competitive environment, nationally and internationally, for all of our companies, not only those that are intensive energy users.

We now come to the main business, which is an Opposition Day. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House views with deep concern the crisis of teacher shortages which is hitting schools across the country and which has led to some schools operating a four day week, children being sent home early, increased class sizes and the use of non-specialist and unqualified staff; deplores the Government's complacency in the face of this crisis; notes that many teachers are leaving the profession because of the increased red tape and bureaucratic burdens imposed by this Government; recognises that the teacher shortages are damaging standards in schools; and calls on the Government to revive the teaching profession by getting rid of the excessive bureaucratic burdens faced by teachers, setting schools free and letting teachers teach.

As I start this debate, I would like to pay tribute to the teachers and non-teaching staff in our schools who, today, are having to work even harder in the face of difficult circumstances to ensure that children receive as good an education as possible, given the problem of teacher shortages faced by schools throughout the country. Our debate takes place against the backdrop of a crisis that has all but crippled our education system. In all parts of the country, schools are facing massive problems in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg for, just as worrying, is the impact that the crisis is having on the quality of education that children receive. Behind the headlines, teacher shortages are having a damaging effect on standards in our schools. There is an immediate crisis in teacher supply, but there is also a crisis in the quality of education which our hard-pressed teachers can provide.

We know what the Government's response will be from what they have been saying over the past few weeks. First, they will tell us that there is no crisis, as the Secretary of State did at Education questions last week, when he said:

There is a problem, but not a crisis.—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1220.]

I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. The week before, on 7 January, the Prime Minister said on "Breakfast with Frost" that

in the vast bulk of this country, this is not the great problem.

Of course, it is just the sort of problem that the Prime Minister has refused to debate on television with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. First, the Government say it is not a problem, and then it is a problem, but not a crisis. I wonder what we are going to be told this week? Perhaps the problem is a little bit bigger or has become a little local difficulty. It may even—to use a word that is favoured by new Labour—be a challenge.

It is no good the Government claiming that the problem is merely being whipped up by the Opposition. In a letter to the Department for Education and Employment, the director of education at the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated:

The threat of sending home pupils because staff are not available to teach them is imminent. We are facing a crisis.

There are many other such concerns. In a letter published on 4 January, David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that teacher recruitment was "approaching meltdown". Last November, Derek Dorey, the head of Selsdon primary school in Croydon, said:

We are facing a crisis of huge proportion in staffing.

On 28 December, John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said:

The teacher supply crisis is having a substantial effect on the education of thousands of pupils in secondary schools. Shortages exist across the country.

Also in December, Professor Alistair Ross, of the Institute for Policy Studies in Education, said:

This is serious, and we are in for a long-term national crisis.

Furthermore, the Minister for School Standards received a letter this morning from the National Union of Teachers, which states:

England and Wales are facing the prospect of the worst shortage in teacher supply for many years.

It is not as if the Government have not been warned about the problem. Time and time again, they were warned by Opposition Members and by members of the teaching profession that teacher shortages had reached alarming levels. It is noticeable that the Government have not initiated in their four years in office a single debate on the teaching profession and the problems that it faces. This is the third such debate, each of which was initiated by the Opposition. In he two Opposition day debates that occurred last year, we urged the Government to take action to prevent a crisis. They have also been urged to do so by the Secondary Heads Association, the other teacher trade unions and other groups.

The Government have been told for many months that the system is close to breaking point, but we can go back even further than that. In October 1997, in a press release on the first report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which dealt with teacher recruitment, the then Chairman, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment and present on the Front Bench, said:

The Committee chose this as its first report because teacher supply is an issue that goes right to the heart of education policy. Sufficient high quality teachers are essential if we are to raise standards in our schools. In our report we conclude that there is a crisis in teacher recruitment.

At that time, however, children were not being sent home early, no schools were completely reliant on supply teachers from abroad or were on four-day weeks and there was no proliferation of unqualified and non-specialist staff. If there was a crisis at a time when schools were operating normally, what on earth is the situation today?

Would the hon. Lady care to compare the current Government's spending on education with that planned by the previous Conservative Government? If the previous Government's plans had been implemented, would there not have been 10,000 fewer teachers than are currently working in our schools?

I am happy to compare the current Government's spending on education with that of the previous Conservative Government. The figures show that they are spending less, despite having come into power in May 1997 and promising to spend a greater proportion of the national income on education than the previous Government. I suggest that the hon. Lady pay more attention to her figures and not take the Whips' brief so seriously.

Since all the threats to which I have referred arose, the Government have not taken the necessary action to prevent the crisis from harming the quality of education that our children receive. Indeed, their complacency is breathtaking. It is not as if the figures have not been showing a problem. The Secretary of State's own Department's figures show that recruitment levels have dropped since 1997 and vacancies have been rising. Indeed, official figures show that teacher vacancies have increased by almost 50 per cent. under the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] The Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards say that that is not true, but those are the official figures released by the Department for Education and Employment.

I can understand the Secretary of State indicating that those figures are not worth trusting. After all, last autumn, when the Department was saying that there were only 1,000 vacancies across the country, a survey by The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association showed that there were 4,000, which is four times the figure produced by the Secretary of State's Department.

We do not have to examine official statistics to know the position: we just need to look at last week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which contains 272 pages of job adverts. The Secretary of State is not the only person to distrust his Department's statistics. As the director of learning services at Essex county council said in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman:

Schools have expressed concern about the current definition of a vacancy used by your Department, where any vacant post covered by a contract of one term or less is not counted. This definition does not show the true extent of the problems facing schools.

Will the hon. Lady confirm for the House and for those interested whose definition that was? I have replied to the director, and presumably through him to his chairman at Essex, pointing out that that is exactly the same definition as that applied by the previous Government.

If the Secretary of State thinks that it is the wrong definition, why has he not changed it in four years? The answer is that he has not changed it and his official figures do not show the true extent of the problem faced by schools up and down the country. The head teacher of Great Totham primary school in Essex told my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that

the situation is getting desperate; the Government is living in cloud cuckoo land if it says that there is no crisis

When Edmund Burke talked of lies, damned lies and statistics, I can only assume that he was thinking of a future Department for Education and Employment.

Instead of learning lessons from the statistics, the right hon. Gentleman is intent on spinning them. Last week he rubbished figures from the Graduate Teacher Training Registry.

I was right.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he was right. This week he has leapt on statistics that show a small increase in the number of applicants. What do those figures reveal? They show a decline in applications for the subjects that are currently desperately short of teachers: mathematics down almost 4 per cent., English down 2 per cent., French down more than 9 per cent. and history down 7.3 per cent.—a rather more worrying figure, given the number of children who, according to a report this morning, do not know who Winston Churchill was. That is the true picture behind the right hon. Gentleman's spin.

Overall figures show a fall on the numbers recorded four years ago. The latest figures for recruits to initial secondary teacher training courses show that over the past four years the number of recruits is down by 1,000.

The hon. Lady is giving very much the same speech as was given before Christmas. What proposals does the Conservative party have to resolve this crisis?

I shall come on to that point. It is fascinating that when the hon. Gentleman discusses education in the House, he does not want to talk about the teacher shortages created by the Labour Government. His friends on the Labour Benches are doing what he wants, but it is time he considered the situation in our schools, which I am describing for his benefit as well as for that of those on the Government Front Bench.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Executive has recently given Scottish teachers a 21.5 per cent. increase in salary? That will provoke a recruitment and retention crisis in Northumberland schools, because the difference in salaries on either side of the border will be immense. Northumberland county council will be unable to match such increases because its education authority is among the worst funded in the country—indeed, as far as secondary school pupils are concerned, it receives the lowest funding—and the schools are already having to cope with a £1 million cut in their budgets. The promise of "education, education, education" is wearing very thin in Northumberland.

It is obvious from what my hon. Friend has said that, far from "education, education, education", Northumberland has cuts, shortages and shortages, and that its children are suffering as a result of the actions of this Government and of the Labour-controlled county council. Our proposals for a national funding formula will help to even out the discrepancies, and to improve the situation of those authorities that suffer from such differences in spending on their children.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I want to make some progress.

The Government have told us that there is not a crisis, because the number of people registering an interest in going into teacher training has been going up. That is all very well, but it does nothing to tackle the problems faced by schools today. Perhaps the Government should consider the evidence of the latest Smithers report, published in December, entitled "Attracting Teachers", and the survey conducted recently by the National Union of Teachers. They show that, of those training to be teachers, some 10 per cent. fail to qualify. Nearly 30 per cent. of those who qualify do not go into teaching, and 7 per cent. of those who go into teaching drop out in the first year. Of every 100 people training to be a teacher, only just over half will go into the classroom for more than a year. An increase in people registering an interest is not going to solve the problem that our schools face today, tomorrow or in the months to come.

There is a crisis now, the situation is worsening and we have nothing but spin and complacency from the Government. The result of the Government's inactivity is plain to see. Schools across the country are in crisis, with head teachers and their staff fighting valiantly to ensure that the damage to our children's education is minimal. The fact that many schools have avoided switching to a four-day week, or worse, is a tribute not to the Government—whose incompetence put the schools in this position in the first place—but to the heroic efforts of the teaching profession.

The head teacher of St. Mary's high school in Cheshunt had faced circumstances in which a third of her pupils were having to lose out on lessons and go home early. She wrote yesterday:

As from Thursday 18th January 2001, it has been possible for all students at St. Mary's High School to return to school for their lessons.

We are grateful to those supply teachers and non-teaching staff, who are making this possible … We thank … our own staff for their dedication and commitment to our students.

Yes, and she also said:

We thank the local authority and the DfEE for working with us at this difficult time …

We all agree with the thanks that she has given.

We do, indeed, note the thanks that the head teacher has given. I am sorry that the Secretary of State had to intervene, because I was making the simple point that the teachers are the ones who have borne the brunt of the problem, not the bureaucrats. The teachers are the ones who have to deal with the crisis on a day-to-day basis in the schools, with the children in their classrooms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons teachers have been flocking out of the profession in recent years is that, too often, the role of teacher has involved an exercise in crowd control? Does she also agree that the Government's guidelines on the legitimate use of physical restraint by teachers when dealing with recalcitrant pupils should reflect the common-sense instincts of the majority of the British people, and not the politically correct prejudices of the liberal establishment?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the politically correct prejudices of the liberal establishment have had a damaging effect on discipline in our schools. That is one of the key issues that teachers cite when they leave the profession.

The problems experienced by the school to Cheshunt are part of a wider problem affecting Hertfordshire. It is even affecting some of the leading state schools in the county and, indeed, the country, such as Watford grammar school for boys, whose headmaster has said:

It is becoming increasingly difficult to even get shortlists of suitable candidates for teaching positions. We are having to use every means to fill jobs.

The situation in Hertfordshire is extremely serious.

My hon. Friend has illustrated the reality. However, this is a serious problem not just in Hertfordshire but throughout the country. When I was in Cumbria recently, I heard from teachers there about the problems they were experiencing in filling vacancies.

May I ask a simple question? What is the hon. Lady's solution to the problem?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about the problems that his Government have created, but he is going to have to hear about them.

What will you do?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we will do in due course, but first he must hear about the problems caused by his Government's policy. Let me tell him that when he goes on the electoral stump—

rose—

I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. Let me tell him that when he knocks on those doors, people will not ask him what the Conservatives propose. They will say "We pay the tax; where are the teachers?"

Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems of St. Edward's school in Chipping Campden, in my constituency? For the first time in its 40-year history, the school has advertised a vacancy for a science teacher and has received not a single application. I know that that has happened in London, but if it is starting to extend to areas such as Gloucestershire, what on earth will the problems be in schools that cannot find teachers to teach?

That shows that when the Government claim that the problem has hit only schools in London, they are plain wrong. The problem is being experienced by schools throughout the country. We wish the teachers and pupils at the school cited by my hon. Friend all the best in overcoming the difficulties that they, like those in so many other schools, are facing.

The crisis is affecting standards. In Essex, head teachers have been forced to use unqualified teachers to plug the gaps—67 in 61 schools throughout the county. In north London, a school has reported that only one in three maths teachers has maths qualifications—a higher proportion, I suspect, than obtains in the team that produces the Secretary of State's statistics. Throughout the country, head teachers are being forced to use supply teachers to bolster permanent staff.

Back in May 1997, the incoming Labour Government promised that class sizes would be smaller. They should try telling that to the 90 pupils at Bishop Reindorp school in Guildford, who have been put in a single class because of teacher shortage. Now we face the threat of industrial action. Let me make it clear that we do not support such action by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers; teachers and heads should go on trying to work together, as they are all doing, to ensure that children are protected from the worst effects of the crisis. But, as head teachers in Barnet said last month in a letter to parents,

there is only so much extra work that we can ask our staff to do.

Schools have had to shorten hours because of the crisis. Schools have had to send children home for half a day per week, or longer. There is little doubt in the minds of parents that there is a real crisis in our schools, and that it is affecting standards.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I must make some progress.

The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers told the Minister for School Standards today:

Teachers are being asked to teach subjects for which they are not qualified; teachers who would not normally have been first, or even in some cases second, choice are being employed simply because there are not enough applicants for posts. Children are being taught in larger classes and subject areas are being dropped … Children's education is suffering because they are being taught by teachers who are being overstretched, stressed and in some cases not qualified to teach the subject for which they have been employed.

What have the Government done? They have failed to address the key issue for which answer is needed. The problem is not just about recruitment; it is about retaining teachers. Why are teachers leaving in droves? Because of the work load caused by red tape and bureaucracy, and interference in the classroom.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No.

A good example has been provided by Dr. Chris Nicholls, head of Moulsham high school, in Chelmsford, who said in The Times Educational Supplement that the Government's "dictatorial" and "heavy-handed" approach has marred Labour's first term, and that the endless initiatives from the Department for Education and Employment have left teachers feeling demoralised and overburdened.

Dr. Nicholls said that the Government's

approach has simply been too prescriptive and over-the-top …

We don't seem to be able to do anything in schools these days without filling out forms … We are now living in a bureaucratic nightmare.

Even teacher recruitment is tied around with red tape, as demonstrated in the graduate and registered teacher programme. Let us look at an application form for that programme for primary schools. I can understand a requirement to ask for a few pages of details on applicants and their needs, but how many pages does the application form have? Are there one or two pages? Are there four, five, six or seven pages? Are there nine pages? No; the application runs to 23 pages.

It is no wonder that the director of education at the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead said that one of the major problems with the programme is that "it is over-bureaucratic" and that the application form is

unnecessarily complex and … de-motivating for candidates and for schools.

The director of education suggests—I should like the Secretary of State to take these proposals seriously—that the graduate and registered teacher programme should be changed

to reflect the recruitment difficulties experienced in places other than central London,

and that the

allocations need to reflect the full range of teacher shortages and not focus almost exclusively on secondary shortage subjects.

He also suggests improving the application procedure.

Perhaps the Secretary of State could take up those constructive proposals and change the programme to ensure that it is not so bureaucratic. He could also try to ensure that the changes help schools outside London.

If the Government really want to help resolve the current crisis, why do they not consider relaxing the restrictions now? All along, however, what we have had from the Government are not concrete proposals, but spin and no delivery. The Government's only response has been a new telephone line, a special unit in Whitehall, phoney statistics and a dogged determination to avoid admitting what every teacher across the country knows—that the education system is in crisis.

Teachers need to be left to teach. They need to be freed from the suffocating burden of directives, circulars and guidance that flows daily from the Secretary of State's Department. New teachers who started at the beginning of last year would have received 140 guidance circulars from the Department for Education and Employment by the time that they were six months into the job.

A Conservative Government will stop telling teachers what to do and allow them to do what they do best—teach. We have pledged to match, pound for pound, Labour's spending on schools. However, we shall ensure that that money finds its way to where it is most needed, because too much Government money is being squandered on waste and bureaucracy. By devolving powers and budgets to schools, we shall ensure, on average, an extra £540 per pupil for every school in the country.

Will the hon. Lady give way?