House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Mar 1991

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) : This is probably the first time that an opening speech has been made at a time normally reserved for the replies. That is a telling sign of the Government's incompetence. In the midst of the worst recession for a decade, with unemployment rising and output falling, the Budget will be remembered not for what it did for the economy but for the poll tax.

The poll tax, like some virulent contagious disease, is contaminating everything with which it comes into contact ; no aspect of local or central government appears immune. On Tuesday, it infected the Budget with deadly results.

Mr. Howard rose--

Mr. Blair : In a moment, please.

From now, every time that we make a purchase--a new video, television, car, suite of furniture or clothes, buy a meal, take a holiday, go to the cinema and in every aspect of pleasure or business--we shall have a reminder in perpetuity of the most foolish measure introduced in modern times.

Mr. Howard : All the Budget did for local government finance was to shift the proportion financed locally to central Government. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party opposes that shift, or is he saying that it would have financed it in some other way? If so, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us how.

Mr. Blair : We would not have introduced the poll tax and be in this mess. I remind the Secretary of State that he was the Minister responsible for introducing the poll tax, but now he is going to stand on his head and tell us that he regretted it.

The Budget should have included, as we demanded, not a partial but the full restoration of the training cuts and made proper provision for a temporary work programme to assist unemployed people. Instead, the training concession, which is the only measure in the Budget on

Column 494

training or unemployment, is costed at £20 million--barely one third of the extra cost of resubmitting poll tax bills after Tuesday's announcement. Can there be any clearer sign of the Government's priorities or any better proof of their failure?

The real casualties of the Budget are all too clear. Unemployment is rising faster than at any time since the early 1980s--the worst recession on record--and 370,000 people were made redundant or have lost their jobs in the past few months. Twelve thousand jobs have gone since Tuesday's Budget. Almost 100 constituencies, three quarters of which are represented by Conservative Members, have suffered a rise of more than 1,000 in unemployed people. In the south-east, unemployment has risen by 50 per cent. ; in the south-west by 47 per cent. ; in East Anglia by 45 per cent. ; and in the midlands by more than 20 per cent. Areas such as north Wales and Scotland, where the rise has been slower, are starting to rise inexorably from a much higher base.

The recovery for which the Government have striven so hard has been put at risk. In every constituency, there are closures, redundancy and short-time working. In every affected family, there is worry about paying the mortgage, meeting household bills and, above all, about how to get back to work in a labour market that is shrinking daily.

In every part of Britain, every sector of industry and every occupation in the workplace, the recession has taken its toll and is the direct responsibility of Ministers. They say that the recession is biting worldwide, but that is palpably untrue. No main European country is set for any fall in growth in 1991, let alone to register negative growth of 2 per cent. In Japan, growth will be 3.5 per cent., in Germany 2.5 per cent., in France 2 per cent. and in Italy 1.5 per cent. In the third and fourth quarters of 1991, we will be the only main economy in the world that will suffer falls in growth. Moreover, it is not that we are first in and first out ; we are first in and last out. Growth predictions for 1992 show that we shall grow more slowly than any other OECD country. We are worse off in another respect : in 1991, business investment will grow in Japan, Germany, France and Italy but plummet by almost 10 per cent. in Britain. Billions of pounds of investment are going to German, French, and Japanese firms from United Kingdom industry. Although, as the Secretary of State said, we do not have the highest absolute rates of unemployment in Europe, we have the fastest-rising unemployment anywhere in the OECD.

Against that background, we look at the Budget and the Department of Employment. In 1989, when unemployment stood at 1.8 million, the budget for employment training was about £1.5 billion. In 1990, when unemployment stood at 1.6 million, it was well over £1 billion. In 1991, when unemployment is topping 2 million, how can the figure of £850 million- -a cut of almost half what it was two years ago--possibly be justified? If the money in 1989 was barely adequate for unemployment, then how can it be adequate now when unemployment is higher? The omission from the Budget of any proper measures for the unemployed is the most telling expression of the Budget and the Government's priorities. A clear and cynical calculation has been made that 2 million or more unemployed is electorally tolerable. I do not believe that the Government are right in thinking that, but even if they

Column 495

are and it is electorally tolerable, it should not be tolerated by any Government who have proper respect for the society in which we live.

Our criticism, however, is not just of the Budget's failure to announce new measures to assist the unemployed but of its failure to correct past mistakes. Even now, because of the cuts in the budget of the Department of Employment, chaos and confusion are being caused across training provision in Britain, as hon. Members must know from representations that they have received. If we have received those representations, the Department of Employment must have done so, too. Our office has been inundated with scores of complaints that in every part of Britain training schemes are closing, trainers are being made redundant and training places are being lost. Many of those places are for the most disadvantaged people in our community. For some, employment training, with all its faults, offered their only lifeline to self-improvement. Many have written to us--some from high technology schemes for the long-term unemployed, some who are handicapped and some young people whose only opportunity that was to get back into the job market.

We come to the one measure in this year's Budget that is remotely concerned with employment or training--the tax relief on training fees. Anything that assists training is welcome. The great problem with tax relief is dead weight--in other words, those gaining the tax relief may have undertaken a course anyway and many of the poorer and unskilled will be unlikely to gain by the proposals. Having said that, it is clearly right that anything that assists training deserves our support. When we put that against the scale of Britain's training deficit and realise how far behind we are, can it be said that this sole measure in the Budget that assists employment and training really faces up to the scale of the problem?

The Secretary of State said that more companies were training, and we welcome that. There are signs that they are. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the Industrial Society's report much more carefully before drawing his conclusion in quite such a black-and-white way. More companies are training in Germany, Japan and France, and to higher levels and more qualifications. The idea that they are standing still while we are catching up is nonsense. They are moving ahead, too. When we agree that Britain needs a training revolution, when we must accept that we have more unskilled employees than any other main European competitor, when we languish far behind Germany and France in skills for technicians, textile workers, shop assistants, engineers and computer programmers--almost every sector of the economy, whether services or manufacturing--and then we compensate for five years of cuts totalling £1 billion in Government funding with one tax concession worth £20 million, the notion that we are preparing ourselves adequately for the future is an affront to our common sense.

The tax concession is not unwelcome, but it is a sop--a political nod in the direction of a serious issue, made without any credible intention of addressing it. It would have been far better to adopt the proposals that the Labour party advanced in our Budget submission, not only for the restoration of money lost through training cuts and the establishment of a good temporary work programme for the unemployed, but for a new special skills fund of £300

million--adequately financed, in other

Column 496

words--to allow us to provide access to those who want to obtain skills for the first time and to those who want to improve their skills.

This tax concession--this sop--reveals the nature of the present Government. They are a Government with no purpose except to be in government. They are a Government with no coherence, no commitment, no passion and no understanding of the needs of the country. A Government who were concerned for Britain in the middle of a recession would have produced a Budget for Britain--a Budget for employment and training. If the Government can find £4.5 billion to salvage the wreckage of the Tory party over the poll tax, why cannot they find £200 million to help training for the unemployed? The reason is simple : they are more concerned about the jobs of 370 Tory MPs, at risk from the electorate, than about the 370,000 people made unemployed since the recession began.

On Tuesday we had a Budget that ignored the problems of the real economy. Today we had a poll tax announcement whose shambolic incompetence defied belief. It has been a fitting end to a farcical week. Contrary to what we were told by the Secretary of State, when the next election comes, this will be remembered as the week that saw the beginning of the end not just of the poll tax and the mismanagement of our economy but of the party responsible for both. 9.12 pm

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail. He spoke about the next election. I can only say that his speech did not impress me. On the contrary, it increased my conviction that, after the next election, I shall be greeting my eldest son and not the hon. Gentleman as the Member for Sedgefield. I suppose that, following the Chancellor's statement on Tuesday, there can have been no prizes for guessing that all the headlines on Wednesday would be devoted to the increase in VAT and the £140 reduction for every community charge payer. In my view, that was not the most important lesson to be learnt from the Budget. The Budget was living proof that the Chancellor had refused to succumb to the many temptations that must have surrounded him in recent weeks to relax the stern and strict measures taken with the economy and to return as soon as possible to expansion and a period of lower inflation and interest rates. I was enormously relieved that the prospect of an election some time in the next year did not lead my right hon. Friend into irresponsibility. I am sure that siren voices must have tried to tempt him into taking steps that would not have been wise, and I congratulate him on having resisted that temptation, which must have been great.

My right hon. Friend referred to the prospects for the next year. With regard to economic growth, he said that we should return to an annual rate of 2 per cent. in the year to the end of the first half of 1992 ; that we can now see the prospect of the end of the current recession ; and that, as we have already got two percentage points off the level of inflation, there are prospects of inflation falling to below 4 per cent.

Many people would have said that it was understandable had he succumbed and let off the brakes to the extent

Column 497

of producing a Budget that was not prudent. I was especially struck by the Chancellor's repeated statements that a tight economic policy will continue. It is true that, nowadays, the room for manoeuvre by any Chancellor of the Exchequer is considerably reduced by Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I believe that that is a good discipline for all Chancellors. If, by any chance, we were at any future time to find ourselves with a Labour Government, the discipline of the exchange rate mechanism on that Government's Chancellor--history has shown that Labour Chancellors have always been much more tempted, and have always reacted by moving into the realms of imprudence--would be much greater than is necessary on a Conservative Chancellor.

I was very pleased to hear that it remains the firm intention of the Government to move to the narrow exchange mechanism band as soon as that is prudent and possible. That is good news. Before the Budget, I worried that elements of imprudence might creep in. My worries are considerably abated. I believe that the battle to conquer inflation has not been diminished in any way and that the struggle to preserve honest money is being continued. I welcome the Chancellor's statement that the intention is to achieve a balanced budget over the period of the 1990s. That is certainly good news.

I have always measured Budgets by the reactions of my constituents. I am sure that the people in my constituency will be hugely pleased by the changes in the community charge and by the evolution from the Chancellor's speech about which we heard this afternoon--the creation of a system which, I am sure, will seem fairer to the huge majority of people in this country. I was glad--and I am sure that my constituents will be glad--that the new proposals for the raising of money for local government will continue the concept that everybody should pay something. If we are to switch the raising of funds from local to central revenues, it is far better that that should be done through value added tax than through income tax. Many constituents have written to me saying that there should be such a switch. The great advantage of raising extra revenue centrally through VAT is that it achieves what many of my constituents want--a system that reflects ability to pay. Because of the zero rating of food, rent and fuel, which represent such a high proportion of the expenditure of people on lower incomes, the VAT system gives a good deal of protection to those who are worst off.

My constituents will welcome the community charge changes. Because the proposed system is fairer, the taxes will be easier to collect, and there should not be repetitions of the absolutely outrageous behaviour of various Labour Members of Parliament, as well as Labour party supporters and others throughout the country, who have demonstrated that they have scant respect for the rule of law. I am pleased that the new arrangements for the community charge will maintain the capping system to control extravagant local authorities that have been holding their charge payers to ransom. In Cumbria we have a grossly extravagant county council, run by a Labour- Liberal consortium, which escaped capping last year by the skin of its teeth but which is still holding the people to ransom by its various extravagances.

Column 498

Not enough of my constituents have yet understood the pleasant surprises that are in store for them. When they receive their community charge bills for the coming year, they will see the considerable reductions in the charge as a result of the announcements of two months ago. Those reductions will especially help people living in houses which were previously on low rates. They will be even more surprised when they realise that a further £140 will be knocked off their bills.

The Budget's accent on industry will please those people even more. Most of my constituents never forget the role of industry in creating the wealth of the nation, on which everything else depends. The Secretary of State referred to the measures applying to small businesses. I shall not repeat them, except to point out that my constituents have been looking for such action for a long time. I refer to the reduction in tax rates, the help with VAT, the threshold exemption, the relaxation on capital gains tax and the new pay-as-you-earn arrangements. They are all welcome.

I congratulate the Chancellor on having achieved low taxation rates for industry which make this country the most attractive for overseas investors. We now have the lowest taxed industry in the European Community and the United States. As a result of the Budget, the powerhouse of the economy--British industry--will have tremendous opportunities in the coming years to expand and prosper and, as that happens, the nation will expand and prosper.

9.22 pm

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : This truncated debate has been overshadowed in more ways than one by the poll tax debacle--the biggest fiasco in modern political history and a U-turn of staggering proportions. A proud flagship has gone for ever, yet we still have to hear a word of apology or contrition from the Treasury Bench. Any Government with an ounce of shame or decency would have resigned. There is much that I could say about the poll tax, but because of the shortage of time I will leave the matter there and deal with the Budget and the state of the economy.

The Tories have had 12 years in which to implement their policies. After all that time, we are plunged into the depths of an appalling recession with an explosion of mass unemployment. They have had 12 years to get things right--all those years of North sea oil, of £100 billion revenue and selling off state assets--but it has all been squandered. Where is the economic miracle they used to talk about? Where are the apologies to the unemployed? There were 86,500 more out of work last month--86,500 more tragedies.

We were told that inflation was to be the Government's judge and jury and that their aim was to achieve zero inflation. When inflation began to rise, we were told that it was just a blip. It has been blipping ever since. The Government have strangled the economy and brought it to a standstill in an effort to deal with inflation. We have a record trade gap. When the trade gap went to £1 billion in one month the Government said that it was a freak. It has been a freak ever since. We have record bankruptcies, the highest interest and mortgage rates, the highest house repossession rates, unemployment surging, output down 2 per cent. this year on the Chancellor's own admission, manufacturing output down 5 per cent. this

Column 499

year, and investment--the seed corn--down 10 per cent. It is an abysmal catalogue of failure. In no other country in Europe is the same thing happening.

The Tories used to talk about the Labour party being a party which might borrow. We have not heard much about that today. This year the Government are borrowing £8 billion and next year they propose to borrow £12 billion. If the Labour party had suggested borrowing that amount, we would have heard more about it. That money is not for investment, but to pay for unemployment and to balance the books. If the Government had restored child benefit to its proper level, they would have had to increase it by £2.30 instead of just 25p for the second and subsequent children.

The Government are a complete failure, not just at the margins but in all important essentials. We have a Government of incompetence and bungling. They should not be allowed to stay in office a moment longer. We need an immediate election to cleanse the country of so abysmal a regime.

I want to refer to some of the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Employment in the past three weeks. There was much else that I wanted to say, but there is not time. Last week the Confederation of British Industry told the Select Committee that unemployment would continue to rise all through next year, reaching at least 2.25 million. The CBI also told us that unemployment would go up for the whole of the following year. So unemployment will be rising for two more years, as far ahead as can be foreseen and certainly up to the next election.

Yesterday the Institute of Directors appeared before the Select Committee and told us that last year it had tried to be optimistic but that it no longer could. I will quote the exact words : "Since 1984 the IOD has done its own bi-monthly survey of member opinion including asking members what their expectations are about economic developments. The February 1991 results are the worst in the life of the survey."

The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) mentioned Europe. In the IOD paper there is a passage on the impact of European Community membership going back to 1970. Hon. Members will recall that in 1970 a White Paper said that the effect of entry on the balance of payments would be positive and substantial. I quote the words of the IOD :

"Over the period of 1970 to 1988, UK manufactured exports to the EC rose by 210 per cent. in volume, but imports from the EC grew by 640 per cent. The impact on Britain's trade balance was adverse and severe. Membership of the EC was accompanied by a turnaround in UK manufacturing trade from a surplus in 1970 of £16.2 billion at 1988 prices to a deficit in 1988 of £15.7 billion."

So during that period there was a turn around of £32 billion. The IOD said that the position is worse because in 1970 there was no North sea oil. The IOD also said :

"Although many jobs are created by trade within Europe, it is clear from the figures above that more jobs have been lost. This effect has had an impact on most industries in the UK. There is no reason to believe that 1992 will not accelerate this process."

In other words, the Institute of Directors thinks that it will all get worse. In the next paragraph the IOD says :

"There is a strong likelihood of a painful period of adjustment to the UK's entry into the ERM".

It also said that European monetary union could exacerbate what it called the marginalisation of the United Kingdom economy. That is what we were told yesterday by the Institute of Directors, and it came out in the discussions and evidence

Column 500

that to the extent that our inflation, our productivity and our containment of unit labour costs do not converge with those of Germany--in other words, are not so good as Germany's--we lose competitiveness from day 1 of exchange rate mechanism entry. The IOD fears that our trade deficit unemployment will grow and drew our attention to the experience of East Germany, which changed its currency to the deutschmark but without the same level of productivity and cost as West Germany, leading to the collapse of industry and mass unemployment.

The Select Committee has been interested in the effect on employment of joining the exchange rate mechanism. When we asked the Secretary of State what research had been done on this in the Department, he replied with a letter in which he quoted a memorandum from the director general of the National Economic Development Council and the November 1990 issue of the National Institute Economic Review. That was very worrying because it told us that ERM membership cost France 700,000 jobs and Italy 1 million jobs. Those facts ought to be brought to the attention of the British public rather more widely.

The current issue of CBI News has an article by Professor Douglas McWilliams, the CBI's chief economic adviser. Speaking of the effect on the French economy, he says :

"How has the French economy performed since the start of serious EMF membership of 1983? The initial effect was slow growth. French GNP rose by below trend for five consecutive years from 1983-87 with a cumulative shortfall of 4.5 per cent. of growth compared with productive potential. The main feature of this recession was that output was depressed for an unusually long period "

The article went on to say that wages were reduced. It continued :

"Nevertheless, reducing inflation still required rather slow growth associated with rising unemployment"

--a rise in the number of jobs lost of approximately half a million.

His last paragraph is very revealing and worrying, and all hon. Members should be concerned about it. He says that

"the French experience suggests that if British membership of the ERM is successful in reducing inflation it is likely that unemployment will rise to about 500,000 above its 1990 level at some time before 1994. And if Britain is unsuccessful the rise in unemployment could be substantially more than this--perhaps as much as a million or more."

The Institute of Directors told the Committee that the most important thing was training and that the responsibility for training the unemployed and paying for it was with the Government. A fortnight ago our witness was Mr. David Dickinson, the chairman of the group of 10 of the TECs who negotiates with the Government. He said that "the TEC movement appealed very, very strongly to the Secretary of State in the run-up to the last Autumn Review, in that the level of funding should be maintained at last year's level in real terms, and that this should be maintained at least three years to allow the TEC movement to get up and running. In fact, we saw a reduction overall in the region of 20 per cent. and notably 36 per cent. in money terms in ET, which has given the TECs a major problem. So we think that it is sending the wrong message to the world, to have major cuts in budget."

Mr. Dickinson referred to

"a most Draconian average cut of 45 per cent. in real terms in their adult training budgets."

He then said :

"There is a Budget coming up very shortly, and it would be one of the most powerful things for this country if the

Column 501

Chancellor were to reinstate the training and enterprise budgets at last year's level throughout, which would be three steps similar to the one that has just recently been taken."

The Secretary of State will remember that he recently announced a budget increase of £120 million. Mr. Dickinson told us that the Secretary of State had previously made a cut of £365 million and that the increase announced was only one third of that previous cut. Mr. Dickinson wanted the remaining two thirds. He said :

"I think that would be one of the most powerful things to ensure the success of the TEC movement."

That is what the TECs were waiting for and expecting from the Budget, but they did not get it.

What is the result of the TECs being underfunded? Mr. Dickinson said :

"Many ET providers will be virtually idle in the second half of 1991 due to the cuts in their funding."

I asked him :

"What are we to make of that? What is the significance of that? Do you think that is right? Should we be worried about that?" Speaking on behalf of the TECs, Mr. Dickinson said :

"I certainly think the TECs and the Employment Committee and the Government should all be worried about it."

Therefore, not only are workers becoming unemployed, but the trainers are being put on the dole. That is the criticism that the TECs are making of the Government.

We heard evidence yesterday from Judith Donovan--the only female chairperson. She is the chairperson of the Bradford TEC. She said : "In the early days of getting TECs on the road--less than a year ago--the dream was that TECs would negotiate a budget based on what they proposed to deliver in response to local needs. How the mood has changed ! We now see a reduced national budget allocated to TECs and scope for negotiation almost nil.

The 30 per cent. cut on employment training budgets announced in January 1991 appears cynical when one looks at the way unemployment has increased within the previous two or three months."

That is the evidence that the TECs and the TECs' chairmen are giving to the Select Committee on Employment. [Interruption.] I have just quoted Judith Donovan, the chairperson of the Bradford TEC. The previous evidence was from David Dickinson, the chairman of the group of 10.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Mr. Dickinson is the chairman of one TEC, which is not yet operational. He is not chairman of the group of 10.

Mr. Leighton : I suspect that the Secretary of State is probably misleading and confusing himself. Is Mr. Dickinson a member of the group of 10?

Mr. Howard : I am always happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Dickinson is a member of the group of 10, but he is not its chairman. He made it perfectly plain when giving evidence to the Select Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), that he was giving evidence in a personal capacity. He holds no representative position.

Mr. Leighton : We have to be a little cautious before we denigrate or speak ill of a chairman of a TEC.

Mr. Howard rose --

Mr. Leighton : I shall give way in a moment.

Column 502

The Select Committee on Employment is interested in TECs. We want to be of assistance and we are taking evidence from the TECs. We heard evidence from Mr. Dickinson, the chairman of the east London TECs and a member of the group of 10. He negotiates on behalf of the TECs with the Secretary of State. He is a bona fide witness. The second person I quoted was the chairman of the Bradford TEC. I hope that the Secretary of State will take notice of those people. Even if he does not listen to me or my hon. Friends, he should listen to the chairmen of the TECs who are complaining about their budgets.

Mr. Howard : Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his wholly unfounded suggestion that I was either denigrating or speaking ill of Mr. Dickinson for whom I have the greatest respect? I merely sought to point out that the hon. Gentleman had described him inaccurately and was attributing to him a representative capacity that he does not possess. Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw his remark?

Mr. Leighton : From the evidence given to the Select Committee, I understand that there is a group of 10 and that that group liaises--even negotiates--with the Secretary of State. It told me that it was to have a meeting with the Secretary of State on 18 March. I do not know whether the meeting took place. I have seen reports in the Financial Times, which is usually accurate, stating that the group could not agree with the Minister about the agenda because a new programme was being suggested--a sort of "make work" programme, a resuscitated community programme, a blotting paper exercise to soak up all the extra unemployed. The Secretary of State did not want that on the agenda. I read in the press that, as a result, the group of 10 might not be having a meeting with him. I do not know whether it did.

The Secretary of State must agree that the group of 10 is a bona fide body. Mr. Dickinson described himself as the chairman of that group and it is for the group to decide who is its chairman. However much the Secretary of State shakes his head, Mr. Dickinson is a chairman of a TEC. I have quoted two chairpersons of TECs. It may interest the Secretary of State to know that another panel of three TEC chairmen will appear before the Select Committee. It is right that the House and the country should hear what the TECs are saying. They are criticising the Secretary of State and he knows that. Before the autumn statement they asked him not to cut the budget. It was cut and they asked him to make good the cuts in the Budget, but that has not been done. It is no good the Secretary of State sitting there shaking his head and squirming--he knows that he is on a bad footing. 9.41 pm

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). I am always glad to follow him because, whatever I say, I am bound to appear more optimistic. His gloom--especially over the European Community--shows how essential it is to reduce inflation and to boost savings. The Budget has set out to do exactly that.

I am also glad to follow the hon. Gentleman because he is the only member of the Labour party present who has any chance of remembering what it was like when Labour was last in office. In its last year in office, it spent two and a half times less on training in real terms than the

Column 503

Government are spending now. It is also worth remembering that the Labour party has difficulty with the whole business of training. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) complained that the Budget did not contain initiatives to help the young or to help older workers who are unemployed, especially those with a lower level of skill. Yet it is interesting that when the youth training programme was introduced, Labour Members opposed it root and branch. Whenever they speak about it in the House, they give examples of how it is not working. The employment training programme was designed specially to help to bring those people back into the employment market. Perhaps it is not surprising that the present Labour party opposes the introduction of the employment training programme at every possible opportunity. I am not sure what the Labour party wants, although I know what some Labour-controlled local authorities want. No fewer than 13 Labour authorities have withdrawn altogether from the employment training programme.

We know that the Labour party wants a comprehensive system of vocational qualifications. One of the most encouraging features of training now is the move towards national vocational qualifications. An enormous amount of work has already been done and there is a huge amount still to do. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that the National Council for Vocational Qualifications needs to be a little careful about the elaboration with which it defines some of its competencies. It is putting a huge burden on many hard-working people and we may not need to be quite so refined.

The main point about the NCVQ and its work is that, for the first time, we have a way in which to find equivalence in the vast jungle of qualifications, which go from the bottom to the top of the training ladder. By the end of 1992, such qualifications will cover 80 per cent. of the work force. The national vocational qualification is the best instrument that this country has ever had for destroying the peculiarly British disease which rates academic learning higher than vocational learning. The universities already accept people on the basis of their national vocational qualifications. I want that to be carried through so that it covers everyone. We should then achieve the parity of esteem between academic learning and technological and vocational learning which is long overdue.

The Labour party also wants local training consortia. I am not quite sure what they are, but they sound quite like the training and enterprise councils. I am delighted that we are ahead of the Labour party and I am sure that it is pleased, too.

The Labour party also wants a 59 per cent. top rate of income tax-- undoubtedly a tremendous stimulus to the economy. It also wants a minimum wage. The issue that has put this country further behind in the training stakes than almost any other is the fact that the money that young people with no qualifications get is far too high a percentage of the money that those who have qualifications can achieve. The Labour party wants to enshrine that for ever by insisting on a minimum wage.

We should talk a little more about the good news. Yesterday, in the Palace of Westminster, I had the honour to give certificates to a number of key trainees who had been successful on employment training and on youth training courses. Their delight at having got their

Column 504

qualifications and their tribute to the course that had taken them through were a welcome corrective to the rubbish on employment training and on youth training which is spoken in the House day after day by Opposition Members. If I am not mistaken, the Labour party's contribution to youth training would be to abolish it.

We also need to praise the provision in the Budget that has given tax relief to people who buy their own training. That change is long overdue. For far too long, individuals have regarded training as something that should be provided for them by the employer or by the state. Everything that we can do to encourage people to take individual responsibility for that is essential.

As my right hon. and learned Friend would expect, I must tell him that I am disturbed by the threat hanging over some high quality provision from voluntary organisations. I hope that even at this late stage more can be done to help.

The young homeless need to be helped back to work. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether there is any scope for using the employment offices to which such people go as their accommodation address. It is nonsense for young people to find themselves caught because they have no address and can get no benefit. If they can get no benefit, they find it difficult to get a job because they do not have an address. That is bureaucratic nonsense and we must be able to overcome it.

Mr. Howard indicated dissent.

Mr. Rowe : If I have misunderstood, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, I am delighted.

9.49 pm

Next Section

Home Page