House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Nov 1991

Mr. Leighton : The hon. Member for Battersea has dredged up another figure and found another angle. We shall see what he has this time.

Mr. Bowis : Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman pointing out that even more people wish to be born in Britain when there is a Conservative Government and come through to the working population, surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the increase in the population is entirely people who wish to be in work. Many of them are married women, people with children and so on. The hon. Gentleman should accept and give credit to the Government for the fact that, far from employment dropping, as he implied, job opportunities

Column 1185

have risen to the tune of 800,000 in that period, which means that an additional 800,000 people have been able to find jobs during the Government's period of office.

Mr. Leighton : The hon. Gentleman is making a brave attempt, but his effort gets worse each time and he is digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. He suggests that the extra people on the dole queue do not all want jobs. Of course they want jobs. They would not be allowed the dole if they did not want jobs. They are claimants. They have to prove that they are looking for work in order to receive the dole. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Let me give the hon. Member for Battersea some more information. More than a third of the increase in the total number of jobs is part-time jobs. I do not criticise part-time working, but to include those part-time jobs without talking about full-time equivalents is not to compare like with like. In addition, three quarters of a million of employees have more than one job. Some have three jobs and they are counted three times. Whichever way ex-researchers, budding and Back-Bench Members of Parliament approach the matter, the position is appalling.

In "Alice in Wonderland" press releases which the Government turn out six times a day, the only way forward that they seem to suggest is to have what they call realistic wage settlements. I have a press release here. It says that we must contain wages and get away from what the Government call the going rate and inflation-proofed settlements. Let us be clear that the Government are not referring to bosses' pay. They are not talking about the managers of the privatised monopolies, who have doubled and trebled their wages, their pay--I think they call it their remuneration packages, which is usually in telephone numbers. The Government do not want to stop those people having inflation-proof settlements. Indeed, such people's pay increases are two, three, four, five, six or seven times the rate of inflation. The Government want the ordinary workers to have wage settlements which are below the rate of inflation. In other words--let us be clear--they must have wage cuts. That has been happening. The level of wage increases has been falling. But has it helped? The answer is no, it has not. The important factor is unit labour costs, which is a function of productivity. If wages and productivity rise together, unit costs do not rise. But we have suffered the second Conservative recession and, by definition, in a recession productivity declines. So, although our nominal wages are coming down to nearer the German levels, our unit labour costs are not.

My figures about wage costs come from not the Library but the Department of Employment. They were given to me on 17 October. "Unit wage costs in mining and manufacturing in the former Federal Republic of Germany rose 3 per cent. in the year to the second quarter of 1991, which is the latest available information."--[ Official Report, 17 October 1991 ; Vol. 196, c. 235. ]

That is less than the increase in wages because Germany's productivity is rising.

In the same period unit wage costs in manufacturing in the United Kingdom rose by 11 per cent. So our workers are taking home lower wages. That is the Government's way forward. But does it help? With the recession and the

Column 1186

drop in productivity, even though the nominal wages of British workers have fallen, it does not help. The economy is still spiralling down.

Mr. Forth : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton : Let us hope that this time the Minister will say something sensible. He is girding his loins and he should get better as he goes along.

Mr. Forth : We should reinject some realism into the debate at this point. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that average earnings increases in the United Kingdom are still running at about 7 per cent., whereas, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the inflation rate is half that at about 3.5 per cent? That does not suggest that, overall, the British people are taking the dramatic pay cuts that the hon. Gentleman suggests. In some areas people are agreeing to lower wage settlements. They judge what is appropriate in their circumstances. How the hon. Gentleman can square the figures that I have given him with the claims that he makes? I should be interested to hear.

Mr. Leighton : The claims that I make merely regurgitate what I read in press handouts from the Department of Employment, which claims that it is succeeding in bringing down the level of wage increases. The level is still higher than in Germany, but Ministers go round saying that we are converging and that our inflation rate, interest rates and wage increases are coming down to nearer the German levels. I agree that we have not yet come down to German levels, but the all-important difference between Britain and Germany is that Germany is a successful country where the economy is growing, productivity is increasing, employment is rising and unemployment is falling. Germany is the benchmark against which we must measure ourselves in everything that we do.

The main reason for German success is investment in research--large German companies put enormous amounts of money into research--plant and, most importantly, training. So we must ask how our training compares with that of Germany. The answer is that it does not compare at all. I wish to examine the Government's record in training. I must not give too much punishment to Conservative Members, so I shall pass over employment training. ET is beginning to lack all credibility--I do not think that the Minister will intervene to say that I am wrong. The previous Secretary of State for Employment used to give constant hype about that wonderful programme, which he said was the greatest training programme in the western world. Every programme that the Government introduce is the best programme in the western world. They gave us all that hype about preparing the workers without jobs for the jobs without workers. We do not hear much about that any more.

We know what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury thinks about ET. He thinks that it is such a waste of money that we should not spend any more on it. My local training and enterprise council, the East London TEC, said of ET in a newsletter issued in October : "The plain truth is that ET was misconceived. It has been a flop." The Minister is giving the delightful smile that he gives from time to time to cheer us up. Let us draw a discreet veil over ET. I remember when it was first thought of. Roger

Column 1187

Dawe came to the Select Committee and said that 600,000 people would go through the scheme in one year. I said, "Are you sure you'll get that?". He said, "Yes, we are sure." The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will give us the numbers, which are much smaller.

The Government claim and pretend that there is a youth training place for every young person who does not get a job. I shall be interested to hear whether they do so again today. Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box regularly and say that they are committed to the guarantee. When hon. Members raise the subject in the House, because we learn from constituency experience that that is not so and that the guarantee is not being delivered, Ministers deny it. I doubt whether they will deny it today because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Mr. Arbuthnot rose --

Mr. Leighton : The hon. Gentleman is having another go.

Mr. Arbuthnot : The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has been exceptionally generous in giving way during his speech and I am grateful. I have here a copy of the same leaflet that he was quoting from, saying that ET was a flop. It continues : "What we do not want is to replace it with another monolithic, all-things-to-all-comers programme. We need a range of types of training to meet the needs of different market niches."

It is because of recent Government initiatives that the TEC is able to say that and put that sort of initiative in place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Leighton : The TECs make the opposite case. They say that they do not want another monolithic programme, but

"need a range of types of training"

to meet the needs of a different market. That is what they need, but they have not got it. The hon. Gentleman is in an area covered by the same TEC as my constituency and I urge him to have discussions with Mr. Iain MacKinnon and Mr. David Dickinson, the chairman. Mr. Arbuthnot rose--

Mr. Leighton : Let me answer the question first. The hon. Gentleman should ask them about the extra menu of programmes for adult training. That is what they want.

All the TECs have been writing to tell us that there must be a strategic review of adult training, which is totally unsatisfactory. That is what they want, but they have not got it and they do not have the money to provide it.

I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) to a letter dated 22 November which I received from the East London TEC concerning the YT guarantee. I am certain that he will be interested in it and I will give him a photocopy if he would like one. I raised the subject of YT in my constituency, saying that 500 youngsters were without YT places. Another Under-Secretary of State said that I was misinformed. That upset me grievously. I try to be well informed, especially about what is happening in my constituency. I am not the only one saying that the guarantee is not being delivered. East London TEC is saying so, too. I shall not read the whole letter, but only relevant parts. It says :

"Therefore, I must conclude that we cannot now meet the YT Guarantee--and we see no prospect that we will be able to do so for some time. We are using our best endeavours' to

Column 1188

meet the YT Guarantee and DE officials have acknowledged that, but the scale of the need is too great for a quick solution." The TEC has a low unit price for YT and says that there have been "years of under-investment in YT locally."

I hope that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford is paying attention. I want him to stand up on his hind legs and demand some money for young people in our areas. The last sentence of the letter reads :

"We are conscious that many local young people remain without an offer."

That is the situation in our area.

No doubt the Under-Secretary of State will say that the Government have handed youth training to the TECs and that it is nothing to do with them. They will say that they are committed to YT, but have handed over the details.

The Select Committee on Employment wrote to the TECs to get confirmation of the figures and has received replies from almost all of them. The replies are in the Library and I urge hon. Members who are present and who show a great interest in the subject to read them. The TECs say that half of them are not delivering the YT guarantee or are having grave problems with it. They are trying to deal with demand-led programmes with cash-limited budgets. They tell me that the YT programme was predicated on employer participation and say that the Government are spending less per unit place and that employers are supposed to make a larger contribution. However, many employers are not making any contribution, but are pulling out. The sums just do not add up. Often, the unit price is so low that it is not worth the while of training providers taking part.

In a moment the Under-Secretary of State will say, "I am committed to the YT guarantee."--especially after the note that he has just received from the officials in the Box. He will then say that TECs have a responsibility for delivering the guarantee, but they contract YT out to training providers, who tell us that they are pulling out because it is not worth their while financially. Employers, who have not given any guarantees, are not taking part.

When I raised this subject in an Adjournment debate the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State tried to detract from the letters I quoted by saying that they were out of date. The Under-Secretary nods his head. I have bad news for him. It is no good trying to tell me that this time. We summarised the letters that we received from the TECs and sent a letter summarising them to the Secretary of State. We sent a copy of our summary to all the TECs because we wanted them to know what we were telling the Secretary of State on their behalf and we did not want to misrepresent them. We have received some replies from the TECs. I have one here, dated 21 November. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not say that that is out of date. Bexley, Bromley, Croydon and Sutton--South London--TEC writes :

"I am content that our principal concerns have been fully reflected."

On 19 November, Humberside TEC wrote saying :

"The concerns expressed in that letter reflect very closely the views of the Humberside TEC."

On 25 November Hertfordshire TEC wrote :

"In early September we had still got 1,500 young people under 18 registered at Careers Service Offices as unemployed and available for a training place."

It is no good saying that this letter is out of date as it only arrived the other day. It continues :

Column 1189

"Hertfordshire's unemployment rate has risen by 140 per cent. in the past twelve months "--

the TEC knows what is going on, even though the Secretary of State may not- -

"there are now 30,000 unemployed people in Hertfordshire. With the recent reductions in funding for Employment Training we are only able to provide 990 ET places".

That means 990 places for 30,000 unemployed people.

In a letter dated 29 October, Thames Valley TEC states : "We have problems : local young people covered by the Secretary of State's guarantee are having to wait for places at the moment since available places are full. This is due to the markedly higher levels of unemployment which have hit this area so very quickly in recent months."

Essex TEC has been negotiating with the Department of Employment and has been given some extra money, but the TEC tells us that because there are no employer placements it has had to create project placements. it says :

"Where no work experience provision was available due to the recession, the Essex TEC has been able to establish new training workshops which simulate work experience in a training environment. Unfortunately, workshop training is extremely expensive and in some cases is more than twice the cost that the Department is currently paying the Essex TEC for its provision."

If employers do not make contributions, the TEC has to set up workshops. That is costing them twice as much, even with the extra money given by the Department of Employment. Because the unit price is too low, the programme is failing. The South London TEC is 40 per cent. underspent on its budget. It cannot spend the money, although it is facing substantial demand for youth training places from more than 1,000 young people. How has it underspent its budget, with 1,000 people waiting for a place ? It is because

"the negotiated Unit Price turns out to be too low to generate the volumes of training required."

In other words, training places cannot be bought for the puny sums that the Government are offering.

What do the Government intend to do about cash? All the TECs are telling us that they need more cash. We have had the autumn statement, but there was no mention of any new money for YT. On Wednesday we asked the Secretary of State about it. After he was passed a note, he explained that it had not been mentioned because it had been announced previously that the money for YT was to move from £840 million to £850 million. I then asked the simple question whether that meant that there had been a cut in real terms after allowing for inflation. Again, he would not answer. I do not think that he said that the question was irrelevant, but, after being pressed on the point several times, he said that we could work it out for ourselves. He could not bring himself to face the truth--that the amount of money for YT is being cut.

All the TECs are crying out for more money. What do the Government do? They cut the sum available. When we ask the Secretary of State about it, he cannot tell us the truth, but has to say that we must work it out for ourselves. We are clever enough to do that. We have worked it out and it is a cut. That is appalling. It is betraying our young people and failing the TEC movement.

I have been going on too long and I must bring my remarks to a close. I will not say much about employment action. I asked how many people were on EA and the figure seemed to be about 2,240. That is equivalent to two

Column 1190

days of extra unemployment. That is marvellous, isn't it? So far this great new programme has soaked up just two days of extra unemployment.

Finally, I appeal to the Government to support the TECs. The Government tell us that the TECs were set up to develop business and enterprise, not just to run YT and ET. The Training Agency could have done that. As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, people were brought in from the private sector. Retired people are not taken on, not because they do not have the knowledge but because they do not have the clout. The chief executive officer is the boss of a big organisation and what he says goes. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) may not agree, but once one is retired, one does not have the same influence. That is why we have the big wheels from the private sector.

Those big wheels are saying, "We didn't come into this just to run programmes for the unemployed and to fail in that because we do not have the money. We want to do the proper job that we signed up for." I do not know where the phase "sign up" comes from. What is the difference between signing up and signing? Nowadays people sign up ; they do not sign. All the big wheels have signed up for the TEC movement and it is falling apart.

The Governmment must not maintain their cynical attitude. Their policies are failing the economy, employment and training, and they are strangling the TECs. They must buck up and do better.

10.53 am

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) kindly suggested that the second motion in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) might be reached, even he had little hope of there being enough time for us to reach the third motion. I am grateful to see present my good friend and neighbour in Wandsworth, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has clearly come along to support my motion. I fear that he may be a little disappointed. I apologise to my hon. Friend and the Front Benches that I may have to slip out for a constituency engagement when they come to respond to the debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). In the past few years we have accompanied each other down many paths. I always enjoy hearing his speeches. He often speaks dutifully, as today, about one side of the argument. He was kind to leave time for others to respond with the other half of the argument and we shall come to that. He referred to the unemployment problems that people undoubtedly face, although the latest figures show a welcome fall of 25,000 which he forgot to welcome. The other side of the coin is the increase in the number of people in work today compared with the figure when the Government took over in 1979.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on his good fortune in having this debate and on his inimitable and eloquent introduction. In particular, I welcome what he said about our Prime Minister. He rightly highlighted the fact that our Prime Minister has known, and therefore recognises, the problems faced by people who are, however temporarily, without work. His tribute was a fitting one.

Column 1191

Moreover, our Prime Minister has climbed the ladder of opportunity. Unlike many people, he has not sought to haul up the ladder behind him. He has left it down. His whole policy and philosophy is to enable others to follow those steps up that ladder to opportunity and individual and collective prosperity.

We have always had people out of work. Today's debate is about how we enable such people to find fulfilment, preferably in work, and meanwhile to prepare for work. Every hon. Member has a real care for however many people there are without jobs. That is right and proper.

It is also right and proper to put the debate into the perspective of the additional jobs that have been created. Fewer people are out of work, certainly in my constituency and nationally, than at the last general election and many fewer than a year or two before that. The record shows that half of those who lose their job find another job within three months. If 7 or 8 per cent. are without jobs, as is the case in my locality, 92 or 93 per cent. are in jobs. That is the good picture behind the debate while we consider, as we certainly should, the real individual and family problems facing people without work.

We all meet people in our surgeries and as we knock on doors who are genuinely seeking work, but finding difficulty in terms of their and their families' finance and morale. That is why I am keen that we should do whatever possible to enable people to find a useful way of filling their time while they are out of work to prepare themselves for future jobs. I draw the attention of the House in particular to those who suffer additional problems, perhaps because they have a disability of one form or another. It is even more difficult for someone with a disability to find a job opportunity at a time of higher unemployment than it is in good economic times.

Another category whose interests we must look after covers people who have been in prison or in care. Again, it is difficult enough for them to find job opportunities. We need to encourage them to train. I pay tribute to the Share Community, which looks after people with disabilities, and organisations, such as the Apex Trust, which look after people who have been in prison. They do a great deal of work to promote training and encourage employers to take on such people. We must pay special attention to unemployed young people and those who lose their jobs when they are over the age of 50. Such people find it more difficult to sustain themselves and to get back to work.

The causes of unemployment are many and varied. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East was a little unjust in seeking to place all the blame on one Government. For a start, we know that unemployment is a consequence of economic cycles. Such economic cycles occur all over the world and the present unemployment and recession are not peculiar to this country. It is a worldwide and certainly a western problem, and it must be tackled.

Another cause which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten and needs to go to the Library to consult the history books about--I know that he is an assiduous user of the Library--is the problem of past industrial relations. Does he forget how many jobs were lost in the 1960s and 1970s because of bad trade union and management practices? The hon. Gentleman did not pay tribute to the Government for their policies on industrial relations, strikes and pickets, which have enabled industrial relations problems to be corrected. He did not speak about the

Column 1192

problem of unemployment caused by excessive pay demands. Pay should not be suppressed, but it should be linked to the ability to pay, and I welcome pay increases that are linked to productivity. The absence of such a link leads to the loss of jobs.

Mr. Leighton : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the lead should be set from the top? Should workers in the privatised monopolies aim for the same sort of increases that managers have received? The hon. Gentleman says that high wages eliminate jobs. Will those managers all be sacked or will their numbers be reduced?

Mr. Bowis : I agree that the lead should come from the top. I hope that the people who have awarded themselves excessive pay rises will hear that from me and the hon. Gentleman. Such increases set a bad example and I hope that managers in the private and public sectors will remember that the setting of pay for those who are high on the ladder affects the willingness of people further down the ladder to respond sensibly.

Over the years, there have been other difficulties, one of which the hon. Gentleman implied in his reference to the increase in the number of part- time workers. Women, especially married women, have increasingly desired to return to work and remain there by having a break to give birth. They then return quickly to the jobs for which they have been trained. That is a good way for women to contribute to society, but, of course, it has implications for the unemployment statistics.

The final factor influencing employment are the changes in the developing world. When the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and I were buying one or two shirts in Sri Lanka, we must have been conscious that we were supporting the industry of the developing world, and rightly so. The pattern of raw materials coming from the developing world to this and other developed countries for production and sale of finished goods, often back to the developing world, has changed. That is a fact of life and it influences unemployment. The Opposition are always quick to speak about unemployment. I suspect that Labour has bemoaned unemployment vigorously and at length during every period of opposition. However, every Labour Government have increased unemployment, as the Library will confirm. Anyone who examines the Opposition's policies will fear very much for people without jobs and for those who will become unemployed should there ever be a Labour Government implementing the policies to which the Opposition are committed.

Labour is committed to the restoration of the worst of the industrial relations abuses, to allowing flying pickets, unofficial strike action and secondary strike action, which all lost jobs in the past. It is committed to a high tax policy, high borrowing and high spending, which in the past have led to pain, suffering, misery and job losses. The IMF had to intervene in the past and in the future it would be the European Monetary Institute. Such policies cannot work, because cuts have to be made at a difficult time and even more jobs are lost.

I do not have to speak to people on my side of the political and philosophical fence to understand what a minimum wage policy would cost ; I need only listen to Gavin Laird of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and read in the Library the works of the Fabian Society and, on Sundays, The People . All the independent experts--by

Column 1193

the hon. Gentleman's lights--say that a national minimum wage on the lines proposed by Labour would lead to the loss of 200,000 to 2 million jobs. If one is generous and takes an average, 600,000 to 800,000 jobs would be lost, and the country cannot afford that. A Labour Government would roll over on their back and uncritically accept any proposal from the European Community in order to prove that they are more communautaire than the Conservatives. They would accept directives such as those calling for fewer part-time workers, and would welcome a 48- hour rule. Hon. Members might be happy to consider a 48-hour rule, but the farming community, to name but one, would find it extremely difficult at harvest time if they were not allowed to ask their farm workers to work more than 48 hours a week. That is why we should regard Labour's albeit genuine crocodile tears as extremely salty.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked us to consider a policy of full employment. That sounds like motherhood and apple pie until we examine what full employment really means. It would mean that the whole of the potential work force would be employed at any one time. It would be like having all our soldiers in the front line at the same time. There would be no reserves to call in as the army started to push the enemy forward and nobody to call in to support a fall-back.

As many people as feasible should be in work, but we should have an unemployment reserve in the economic battle when the economy expands. Otherwise, there will be no reserves, imports will be sucked in and workers abroad will benefit. By an unemployment reserve, I do not just mean a register but a reserve of people who are being trained and well paid and who feel part of the economy and of our industrial community. Only people who decline to join that reserve should be included in an unemployment register.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the only economy in which full employment was implemented was the Soviet Union, where those who did not have a job were usually found somewhere to go, such as Siberia or the Gulag archipelago? We have seen the result of that in the Soviet economy. It is not exactly one of the world's most prosperous economies, although the Opposition used to admire it greatly before it decided to drop its socialist credentials.

Mr. Bowis : My hon. Friend is right, and when one recalls that one of the world's biggest employers was the Red Army, one can read a lot into that country's full employment policy.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) rose

Mr. Bowis : I note that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has left the Opposition Front Bench for the Back Benches. I do not know whether that means that he has changed his policy or is distancing himself from the official line of the Labour party on unemployment issues. Either way, I happily give way to him.

Mr. McKay : Even though the hon. Gentleman's view of full employment is entirely wrong, his other comments on

Column 1194

the subject puzzle me. Full employment does not mean everybody working. It could involve, for example, people retiring aged 60 and that could happen now. In other words, the type of full employment that he envisages is not realistic.

I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's perception of a reserve of unemployed, a sort of Dad's Army pool of people waiting to be employed. He envisages a highly trained, skilled, well-paid pool of unemployed. How does that equate with his opposition to a minimum wage? If we are to have a fairly well-paid reserve of unemployed people, why not have a minimum wage?

Mr. Bowis : A minimum wage involves the Government dictating to private employers what they should pay their workers. I answered that point in an earlier intervention. I am talking about a public sector reserve, state supported, composed of people without jobs for the time being, who are receiving training. We now have in power a Government who have produced the biggest-ever package of training in support of people who are out of work. We should adapt that and perhaps incorporate into it some of the schemes that have been tried and could be improved. Perhaps the TECs are coming up with new ideas about the sort of training that should be developed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) spoke recently on the radio about his idea of paying, say, £100 a week to people joining a community task force, enabling them to obtain work experience and contribute to society, which does not simply mean filling in holes in the road but involves going in for a range of useful activities, from working on environmental improvements to caring for the vulnerable in society. The training could be technical or non-technical, enabling people to help, for example, in hospitals and so on.

We should look seriously at such ideas, because, unless we say that everybody should be in work at the same time, we cannot just forget the pool of unemployed. We must consider how to look after them, train them and give them the self-esteem and confidence they deserve. They would obtain that more readily if they were involved in some sort of community task force. The employment reserve of which I spoke would help them to contribute to society and to their personal future and well-being. Having answered the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I shall understand if he now wishes to return to the Opposition Front Bench.

I have a bid to make for additional assistance, and I suggest that there are three means by which we could help people without work more than has been possible in the past. The first would be to expand the system of training credits with which the Department has been involved. I understand that the pilot schemes have proved effective and I was delighted to be told in answer to a parliamentary question this week that other pilot schemes elsewhere in the country will be launched. The sooner that idea is introduced universally, the sooner individuals will have the right to a credit which they can cash in for training and further education, and we should be talking of both--of further education colleges and training schemes.

Secondly, adult education as a whole--or continuing education, as I prefer to call it--has an important role. Handing out certificates recently at my adult education college in Wandsworth, I was enormously impressed by the number of special needs students who received one,

Column 1195

who never in their lives thought that they would qualify for a certificate. They and I were proud of what they had achieved. That shows what adult education can do.

That type of education can also achieve access, which can lead on to other types of training and education. Often, people who hesitate to come into the world of education--perhaps because English is not their first language, because education has not been highlighted as important in their households or because they missed an opportunity earlier in life--can come into adult education, not necessarily taking vocational courses in the first instance, but going on to take such courses, which provide them with the training and self-assurance they need. I hope that the Minister will discuss that point with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science.

Thirdly, we must consider further ways to assist lone parents. I have particularly in mind community nurseries and similar support. All too often, when I meet constituents in tower blocks in Battersea, the women-- often young women with children, the fathers of whom have disappeared--need opportunities to get out, to become trained, to earn and, in due course perhaps, to start to buy their council flats, building opportunities for themselves and their children. They are unable to do any of that because they cannot leave their children and start to climb the ladder that the Prime Minister has exemplified. Because I want that type of development to take place, I urge the Minister to discuss those issues with his colleagues in the Department of Health and in the Treasury.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on initiating this debate, particularly since virtually everybody I speak to about employment, especially if they are out of work, tell me, "It's tough. We need help, guidance and training. But we also need Conservative policies because those are our best hope for getting the economy into the sort of condition that will ensure that we have real job opportunities in the future."

11.17 am

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) : Being an MP can be a frustrating experience. Seventeen minutes ago, in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre across the way, there began the presentation of training awards by the Prince of Wales. The Secretary of State is there, as are people from Coleg Powys, in my constituency, to receive awards, and I should be there. The instructions say that I cannot enter the building after 11 o'clock this morning. Even so, I hope that the House will forgive me if, after my speech, I am absent from the Chamber for perhaps a quarter of an hour while I go there to congratulate the winners of training awards.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on moving a motion about employment policies. Although I am not entirely convinced by the contents of the motion, I agree with parts of it. To point to progress in employment matters seems to be an anachronism when unemployment is today higher than it was in 1979. We appreciate, as other hon. Members have said, that more people are in employment.

One of our objectives should be to utilise labour resources, which are valuable to this country. They should be deployed to the maximum, while full employment is an ideal that we shall not reach. None the less, we should try

Column 1196

to get as many people into employment as possible. The fact that unemployment is now double its 1979 level shows that the Government have failed.

One must look at the other side of the coin. There has been a good reduction in the number of strikes ; we must give the Government credit where it is due. Their policy on reducing strikes has been successful, partly owing to the introduction of democratic ballots before strike action. That measure is not considered controversial on either side of the House ; my party finds it easy to support ballots. Therefore, the two aspects of the motion need full consideration.

Mr. Arbuthnot : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the success of the Government's policy is also to do with the banning of secondary picketing, which the Labour party would bring back with open arms?

Mr. Livsey : Having seen some of what went on with secondary picketing in the 1970s, I regard it as the unacceptable face of socialism. I experienced it on one or two occasions and I feel that it is not the way to proceed. It did the Labour party a great deal of damage, from which it is still recovering. Labour Members do not speak about it much now, and may now be moving in a more constructive direction.

Whether we have a successful employment policy, with the maximum number of people employed, depends on the state of the economy. That, in turn depends on how the economy is managed by the Government of the day and on the quality of management in British industry. Having worked in ICI, I know a little about the management of industry. I always felt that there was room for improvement in top management. Although the standard of management has been variable, it is much better than it was 10 or 15 years ago as a result of fiercer competition and a great deal of fall-out. The approach to management is not quite so lackadaisical as it once was, but there is still a long way to go, particularly in employment policies within the companies. The most progressive companies have an excellent record, but others could improve their labour and personnel management. Yesterday, John Major celebrated his first year as Prime Minister but we know that he was Chancellor in Mrs. Thatcher's Government in the latter part of it--

Next Section

Home Page