---

Skills Audit

4. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the skills audit.[1300]

The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government published the skills audit in June this year alongside the third competitiveness White Paper. It provides objective information on our education and training performance compared to that of some of our major competitors. This will support our continuing drive to ensure a world-class work force.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not a disgrace and an insult to the long-term unemployed, particularly young unemployed people, that the Government have taken 17 years to deal with skills shortages? Will the Deputy Prime Minister comment on the position facing the printing industry, which he knows well? Although the German and UK printing industries are equivalent in size, last year the number of new entrants in the German industry was 4,000 and the number in the UK industry was only 400. When will we have less rhetoric about intervention and see something really happen to help the long-term unemployed?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it if I say that I have no working familiarity with the printing industry. I have never been in that industry.

I take seriously the issue that the hon. Gentleman put to me, however, because it is one of the most important issues facing the country. We have been dealing with skills and education deficiencies since the early 1980s, which is why, to take the most obvious example, one in three young people now go on to higher education, as opposed to one in eight when the Conservative party was elected. We have introduced a national curriculum, testing and the publication of results. The skills audit made it clear that the UK is world class, particularly in higher education. We are dealing with areas where we have weaknesses.

Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind Opposition Members of the unemployment rates for young people in Spain, Italy, Germany and France compared with the rate in this

11 Nov 1996 : Column 6

country? Will he also remind them that the effect of tomorrow's judgment on a 48-hour week, which the Opposition support, is likely to destroy jobs for young people for many months to come?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to continue with our record: we have had five years of economic growth and we are addressing the critical issues of rising standards in education and training.

Mr. Caborn: Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer the questions about the position portrayed by last week's cohesion report from Europe, which clearly showed that we have the lowest productivity rates and have failed to invest in skills and training? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman revisits the criteria on which the skills audit was based, because they clearly do not give the same answers as Europe gives, which involve very objective criteria.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The explanation is simple: we were so far behind in 1979 that we have not yet caught up. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, however, we have been catching up. The best evidence of that comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund, which have clearly stated the pre-eminence of the British economy. Perhaps most eloquent of all is the fact that 40 per cent. of all inward investment in Europe is coming here because world industrialists know that this is the best place in which to invest.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the surveys that put us at the bottom of league tables on education or skills are just so much nonsense? In reality, companies that invest in this country believe that we have a highly skilled and educated work force and it is only Opposition Members who want to run Britain down.

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I do not disagree with the broad approach that he adopts, but everybody knows that, since about 1860, our education standards have not kept pace with those of continental Europe. The difference is that this Government began to do something about it and the gap is closing; in some cases, it has already closed. Apart from our economic achievements, that is one of the most impressive tributes to this Government.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

5. Ms Hodge: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of public budgets are currently administered by non-departmental public bodies.[1301]

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Willetts): The proportion of general Government expenditure administered by NDPBs in 1994-95 was 6 per cent.

Ms Hodge: Further to the answers given earlier, will the Minister tell the House whether there is a list of people in NDPBs who are vigorous and attractive proponents of Government policy? If so, how many of them make a financial contribution to the Conservative party?

Mr. Willetts: Appointments to NDPBs are not made on the basis of political activity or affiliation; the key

11 Nov 1996 : Column 7

considerations are aptitude and ability. It is clear that the Labour party wishes to make political capital out of the matter. If Labour has a policy of deliberate non-participation--I refer to a Labour party document--that has nothing to do with us.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that the freeing up of a great proportion of the public service from the dead hand of Government Departments has been enormously helpful? Does he also accept that we must ensure that several NDPBs that administer Government policy are freed up further and are not subjected to central Government constraints that prevent them from operating as effectively as they might?

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend probably knows that we have reduced the number of non-departmental public bodies from 2,167 in 1979 to 1,227 now. The reason why the Opposition maintain that the number of quangos has risen is that they regard grant-maintained schools and hospital trusts as quangos. We know that they are not.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as public service functions are increasingly devolved to NDPBs, agencies and private contractors, it is important that the conventions that underpin democratic accountability are brought up to date and strengthened? Will he undertake, on behalf of the Government, to lay before Parliament in good time--so that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to satisfy themselves that their constituents' interests will be well secured under the Government's proposed new arrangements--the draft contract for contracting out the Benefits Agency medical services?

Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that I cannot comment on the final point, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have published a consultation paper on the wider issue with which he began his question--the legal framework governing propriety and accountability arrangements in public bodies. We published that paper in response to the first Nolan report.

Departmental Staff

6. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff are currently employed in his office and at what cost; and if he will make astatement.[1303]

Mr. Freeman: There are currently 452 staff in the Office of Public Service. The salary and associated costs for September 1996 totalled £1,468,000.

Mr. Greenway: That is money well spent. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all his researches show that there can be no cherry-picking from the social chapter and that, if it is implemented, it must be implemented as it is? Does he agree that anyone who pretends that one can choose one bit of the social chapter but not another is misleading his audience, as the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) seems to be trying to do with the Confederation of British Industry?

Mr. Freeman: I find myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend. If one accepts the social chapter, one must

11 Nov 1996 : Column 8

accept all its consequences, which would be extremely expensive for the British economy and put people out of work.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is not the Office of Public Service still compiling a list of vigorous and attractive proponents of Government policy who have benefited from Government privatisations and contracting out? Will not Government mouthpieces be rewarded with further contracts, and will not those who refuse suffer? Will the list include businesses that are already big donors to the Tory party, businesses that have former Tory Ministers as directors and businesses that have Tory Members of Parliament as consultants? Is that not a minefield of conflicts of interest--a scandal that should be investigated by Lord Nolan's committee?

Mr. Freeman: The scandal is not as the right hon. Gentleman describes: it is that there should be any attempt to slur the independence of the civil service. There is absolutely no connection whatever between contracts placed after competitive tender on the proper advice of civil servants and those who are political supporters of the Conservative party. It is a scandal to suggest that there is any connection between the two, and I refute that charge absolutely.

Mr. Hawkins: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that reinforce the Labour party's hypocrisy? The shadow Secretary of State for Wales has complained about those who serve on bodies in Wales, but it has now been revealed that his party agent accepted such appointments. Does that not demonstrate the Labour party's hypocrisy on such issues?

Mr. Freeman: I am not aware of the case that my hon. Friend cited. However, I repeat to the House what my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said a moment ago: under Sir Len Peach, the new Commissioner for Public Appointments, competence is the only criterion for appointment to any body.

---