§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10.29 pm§ Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield)I did not ask for this debate on instructions from No. 10 or from the Whips Office. If Keir Hardie had not invented the Labour party, Jeremy Beadle would have done. Labour Members surely represent the biggest practical joke ever played on the British people. It might even be funny, if the consequences for the country were not so dire.
I pay tribute to Janus—no, not Janice, but the two-headed Roman god of beginnings, after whom the month of January was named. Janus's two heads enabled him to look back to the past while facing the future. I would like to emulate that technique this evening, as I believe that we need to look to the disastrous conditions of the previous Labour Government before we can fully appreciate the miraculous achievements of the Conservative Government throughout the 1980s and 1990s in setting the foundations for an exciting future which will continue to bring prosperity to the nation.
A trip down memory lane is necessary to inform and warn an ever-growing section of the electorate who are too young to remember the Frankenstein horrors of the previous Labour Government, although the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a passable imitation of the real thing from Count Dracula's castle—he certainly scares me—and so have little understanding of the reality of voting Labour.
To enable the Government to focus on a policy for the labour market today, they had to consider what happened during the late 1970s. Even to this day, the scars are visible for all to see. No one will forget—that lot over there would like us to forget—the previous Labour Prime Minister, having returned from a trip to sunny Barbados in January 1979, saying, "Crisis—what crisis?" The crisis, which everyone except he and his Cabinet could see, was only too evident. I could give a hundred reasons to highlight that fact, but, for the purposes of this debate, I will focus on 10.
One: rats as big as cats were running around Leicester square, where the capital's refuse was being dumped because members of the Transport and General Workers Union, supported by their sponsored Labour Members of Parliament, refused to collect the rubbish.
Two: the dead lay unburied outside our cemeteries because the TGWU, supported by sponsored Labour Members, refused to dig the graves or to let the corpses cross the picket lines.
Three: patients were not admitted to hospitals, nor were vital drugs and medicines allowed in, because the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, again supported by sponsored Labour Members, said no. Our reforms have meant that, every week, 40,000 more patients are treated in the national health service than was the case in 1979—instead of 40,000 more union meetings.
Four: we have to remember, too, the humiliation of the Chancellor of the day, a certain Denis Healey, who boasted that he would turn the economy round. The only thing he turned round was the 747 taking him to America, because on that morning the International Monetary Fund, or, as I call it, the receiver, had refused to lend the United 704 Kingdom any more money. In other words, we were bust, with our name being dragged through the gutters of Europe, and our national pride gone. Under Labour, Great Britain did not mean Great Britain, it meant "gone bust".
Five: who can believe now that, in 1979, one was allowed to take only £50 per year out of the country to go on holiday? Labour believed that, if it allowed any more to be taken out, it would all go overnight to foreign countries, where people's money would be safe and not subject to the ravages of inflation in the United Kingdom. While we are talking about £50, who did not pay the pensioners their £50 Christmas bonus when they were in power?
Six: who can believe now that, under the last Labour Government, inflation reached a peak of 27 per cent., and that, on a weekly shopping trip, every can of beans had acne? It was possible to peel off four or five price increase stickers—and that was just in one week.
Seven: when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—or is it Belgravia?—regularly talks about closing pits and sacking miners, roared on by his colleagues, he should remember that facts are facts. The Labour Governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79 closed 313 pits—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Evans—with the loss of 205,700 jobs. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government were committed to expanding the market for coal; in fact, output fell by 16 per cent.in that period, from 142 million tons to 119 million. A former Labour Energy Minister, now Lord Marsh, said on 20 October 1992:
We genuinely believed that with a benevolent mixture of good intentions and massive subsidies we could reverse"—I repeat: reverse—the market trend.My Lords, we completely misled ourselves and them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 692.]By "them" he meant the miners.Eight: what was the higher rate of tax in 1979? With the higher rate now at 40 per cent., it seems inconceivable to us now Was it 50 per cent.? [HON MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 60 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 70 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 80 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 90 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS:"Higher."] Was it 95 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Higher.] Was it 98 per cent.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Unbelievable!"] And some of us actually managed to pay 103p in the pound.
Nine: the present leader of the Labour party tries to rewrite Labour's history in order to keep up with our agenda, having to eat his words daily. Over the past 20 , years, his party has changed its mind no fewer than eight times over whether we should be in or out of Europe, and pledged allegiance to a non-nuclear defence policy. It is funny how people and times change—or is it promotion that does it?
With regard to Europe, it is worth mentioning that every member of today's shadow Cabinet, as a Member of Parliament in 1972, voted against British entry. On defence, even at this year's Labour party conference—
Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I point out that the choice of 705 topic was his, that topic being Government policy. To me, that did not suggest past Government policies. I think that the hon. Gentleman should now come to the title of his Adjournment debate.
Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I know very well what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do; I am saying that he must come to the point.
§ Mr. EvansPeople today do not believe that 13 million days were lost under Labour in the 1970s owing to strikes, as against just under half a million lost in 1993.
Those are some of the reasons why Labour lost the general election in 1979; lost the general election in 1983; lost the general election in 1987; and lost the general election in 1992. Labour has played four and lost four. Even Graham Taylor had a better record than that as manager of the England football team.
It is a simple rule of government that, in order to fight unemployment and develop the conditions for growth, investment and job creation, it is vital that the strategy towards the labour market is built upon the foundations of solid and sensible economic policies.
The next time that that lot on the Opposition Benches have the audacity to criticise the Government's economic policy, I should like to play to them the video of the winter of discontent—strikes, inflation, taxes and misery, the four corners of socialism throughout the world.
Since 1979, it has been the task of Conservative Governments to pick up the pieces from the socialist suicide of the seventies. We like a challenge. We leave that lot on the Opposition Benches to do the whingeing. We get on with the job—and what is more, we deliver. Conservative Governments' top priority has been to reduce inflation so that business can have a firm and steady basis on which to plan and invest. We delivered.
In 1993, inflation remained below 3 per cent. for 12 months, the first time that that has happened since 1960. Inflation currently stands at 2.4 per cent., the lowest it has been for 30 years. Compare that with our international competitors. In Germany, inflation stands at 3 per cent. and in Italy it is 4.1 per cent.
We cut taxes to encourage enterprise and initiative. Since 1979, the basic rate of income tax has been brought down from 33p to 25p. Beer and sandwiches at No.10 are gone for ever. Since 1979, exports have risen by three quarters. By taming the unions, we have got the country working again, and working hard. The United Kingdom rose to the top of the productivity growth league in the 1980s, having been at the bottom in the 1960s and 1970s.
Manufacturing industry has been transformed under Conservative management. Britain is now an international leader in key sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals and telecommunications. It was only by defeating the unions that we could regain Britain's position as an industrial world leader and give British management the confidence, freedom and incentive to manage properly and professionally.
Nowadays, when one mentions unions, there is an eerie silence on the Opposition Benches. That silence is caused by confusion. On the one hand, the unions still give 706 Opposition Members a nice juicy pay cheque at the end of each week. Every Member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a union. They have a cheek to talk about sleaze. What is more sleazy than a block vote or a late night shop stewards' election? Labour party policy emanates from their back pockets.
On the one hand, the unions are still Labour's paymasters, but on the other hand there is the so-called "new look" Labour party, led by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who looks more like a ladies' hairdresser than a credible statesman. He lacks only a velvet jacket and a pouffy buttonhole to become the Teazy-Weazy of the trade unions.
That has resulted in a form of political schizophrenia. When addressing a conference of business men, the Labour leadership, Mr. Trade Union Teazy-Weazy promises not to amend trade union laws that we have established, but when the deputy leader addresses the unions, he talks of taxing the undeserving rich, of minimum wages and of reforming Tory laws. Like Janus, they face both ways. If fact, if one compares the Labour leader's speeches with those of the deputy leader, it is difficult to tell whether they are on their janus or their anus. Will the real Labour party please stand up, or is it too late?
The Conservative party's policy on the labour market is the one that delivers the goods. Unemployment in Britain fell again last month by 45,000 to 2.5 million. That marked the eighth successive monthly fall, and fits into a consistent downward spiral in unemployment since 1992.
Our achievement in the labour market compares very favourably with that of our European counterparts. For example, unemployment in the United Kingdom is 8.9 per cent. That is well below the rate in France, which is 11.3 per cent. It is 12 per cent. in Italy and a staggering 21.8 per cent. in Spain. It is worth noting that Spain has a minimum wage. Need I say more?
Throughout the 1980s, the Conservative Government saw the importance of providing the nation's children with an education to equip them with the skills that they would need to enable them to compete in a future labour market. About £2.8 billion a year is spent by the Government on training, enterprise and vocational education. That is two-and-a-half times more in real terms than under Labour in 1979.
In addition, spending per pupil under the Conservatives has risen by 47 per cent. in real terms since 1979 Spending on books and equipment has risen by 31 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Average teachers' pay has risen by 57 per cent. on the same basis since 1979.
Conservative reforms and policies have worked. That is plain for all to see. In Europe, 40 per cent. of all inward investment comes to Britain. Foreign companies are flooding into Britain to take advantage of our sound eonomy, our low taxation and the skills of our honest work force.
Britain, the poor man of Europe in the 1970s—there was the brain drain, when all our best doctors, business men and scientists left for foreign parts— has become the investment magnet of Europe. How can that lot over there on the Opposition Benches seriously question anyone on economic policy when they remain committed to clause IV? Their commitment to nationalisation shows that, despite the recent influx of slick party political broadcasts, 707 sober soundbites and cheesy grins, there still lurks a union boss behind every Labour leader— the string of the Labour party puppet.
Try as he might to get his so-called new-look team to be taken seriously, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield cannot teach his old dogs new tricks, especially when they are kept on a tight Transport and General Workers Union lead, housed in a Trades Union Congress kennel and allowed to eat from a GMB bowl.
The Conservative party is the party of the people. The British people vote Conservative because their vote is returned with a guarantee. We shall deliver.
In the second quarter of 1994, gross domestic product grew by 3.7 per cent. when compared with the same period last year. According to the European Commission— not a source I tend to quote too often— in 1994–95, GDP in the United Kingdom is set to grow faster than in any other EC country.
Politics is about delivering the goods; we have done that. Consumer goods are the layman's thermometer for assessing wealth. Since 1979, the number of households with a washing machine has risen by 14 per cent; with a car, by 16 per cent; with central heating, by 48 per cent. We have injected initiative. enterprise and opportunity into the economy. That has resulted in growth, success and jobs.
How dare that lot over there challenge our record in the labour market when they are financially bound to the unions, chained to clause IV and committed to the suicidal social chapter? Even when taken together, they have less employment and economic experience than a bingo caller.
A Labour Government would allow every man, woman and child in great Britain to participate in the biggest lottery ever seen. The lottery would be based on which policy they implemented first. Would it be higher inflation, higher taxation, crippling national debt or trade union terrorism— in other words, a lottery from hell? It is a lottery ticket that the people of Great Britain must not be allowed to buy.
§ Mr. PaiceMadam Deputy Speaker, if only I could answer in a way adequate to deal with the inimitable style of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)—a style of which we in the House are proud, and of which we know that Janice is also proud.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend on achieving the debate. He is right to recall the situation in the 1970s, against which the electorate rebelled so decisively in 1979. When we examine the labour market, we must start with one fundamental belief: Governments do not create jobs. Jobs come from businesses producing goods and services at a price and of a quality that people want. My hon. Friend knows that from his own successful business career. Government's role is to provide the right framework for enterprise to flourish, and that is what we are doing.
As my hon. Friend has said, inflation is low, well below the average of our European competitors. We are now in a third year of economic growth, with GDP at its highest level ever. Manufacturing output is 4 per cent. higher than 708 a year ago, and we have the fastest industrial production of any major industrial country. Export volumes are up 12 per cent. on a year ago, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund predict that the United Kingdom will have the fastest growing major European Community economy this year. The policies are working.
As my hon. Friend also said, United Kingdom unemployment has fallen again, and is now below 9 per cent., down by 450,000 since the recovery in the labour market began. That fall began much earlier in the recovery than in any pervious economic cycle. It did so because we have a flexible labour market. Flexibility delivers jobs. The least regulated countries are also those with the best record on job creation.
The United States and Japan not only have fewer people out of work than most European countries; they also have more people in work. Only a handful of European countries can match their record, and those countries, such as the United Kingdom, are also among the least regulated. We have a higher proportion of our work force in employment than any other major EC country. Unemployment is falling faster here than in any other member state. Youth unemployment stands at 13.1 per cent, compared with an EC average of 19.4 per cent.
Perhaps most important are the findings of a survey by the EC Commission—not the one to which my hon. Friend referred—showing that 27 per cent. of employers in Europe regard inflexibility as a very important deterrent to recruitment. The figure for the United Kingdom was 10 per cent., the lowest in any member state.
Our aim is to minimise the burdens on business, while at the same time safeguarding employees and the public. We have transformed industrial relations and labour market flexibility since those days that my hon. Friend recalled. Strikes are now at the lowest levels since Queen Victoria was on the throne, and our strike rates are among the lowest in all industrialised countries—lower than those in Germany, France and the United States. We ended the closed shop; we got rid of the dock work labour scheme; we have created trade union democracy, and given power back to union members.
The Government are not interested in a low-wage economy. Nobody seriously believes that we can compete on wage rates with the Pacific rim. We want a high-skill, high-tech, high-productivity economy, because that will lead to high wages but to low unit wage costs. In the past 20 years, unit labour costs in manufacturing have risen by almost 200 per cent. in Europe. In Japan, they have risen by about 30 per cent.
The Government's policies are reversing that trend, and keeping non-wage costs down. Unit wage costs in manufacturing are now down by 1.4 per cent. on last year. Productivity in manufacturing is up by 6 per cent. on last year, and labour costs as a percentage of total hourly costs are lower than all of our major competitors.
But there are threats to those great achievements. There is not just the vague and remote possibility of a Labour Government, to which my hon. Friend referred and properly put into context, but the threat of new regulations and burdens at European level. That is why the Government chose, rightly, to keep out of the social chapter.
709 Let me make it clear that we do not really mind if businesses want to set up works councils, or if businesses want to give workers three months' or three years' parental leave, but we do mind if they are forced to do so. It is for businesses to decide, not Europe, or, in most cases, Westminster.
We have in this country a solid framework of protection for workers in health and safety, sex and race discrimination, trade union membership or non-membership and rights against unfair dismissal. But beyond that framework, we believe that employers and employees should be left to decide which arrangements suit their individual needs.
I referred to a high-skill economy. The main responsibility for training still rests with employers. It is estimated that UK employers spend more than £20 billion a year on training. A CBI survey only last month showed a substantial increase in the percentage of manufacturing firms expecting to increase training, compared with last year.
The centrepiece of our strategy is the "investors for people" initiative, to encourage employers to invest effectively in the skills needed for business success. It aims to improve business performance by linking training and the development of employees to business objectives.
Britain used to lag behind the rest of Europe in education and skill levels. We have done much to change that. More than 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds, and more than 55 per cent. of 17-year-olds are now in full-time education, compared with just 42 per cent. and 29 per cent. respectively in 1979. Training people in work has 710 increased sharply during the past decade. In spring of this year, 79 per cent. more people received job-related training than in spring 1984.
We have not forgotten the unemployed. Listening to the Opposition, one could believe that "the unemployed" were one large homogenous mass. They are not—they are 2.5 million individual people, each with his own needs and expectations. Some need skills, some need motivation, some need literacy and numeracy, and some need to learn how to apply for a job. That is why my Department has a large menu of options for the unemployed, and it is why around half of those who become unemployed leave the count within three months, and two thirds leave within six months.
We have developed national vocational qualifications and modern apprenticeships to drive forward the skills needs of our country. Together with the changes in the labour market brought about by the experiences which my hon. Friend recalled, we are equipping Britain with a work force for the future.
I read today that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said that the Labour party plans to make the Department of Employment a "driving force" for a more competitive and dynamic economy. I have news for her—she is years behind the times, as my hon. Friend described. This Government and this Department, of which I am proud to be Minister, is already there. We are pushing forward the skills frontiers of Britain and pursuing flexible labour market policies to get unemployment down.
My hon. Friend has done the House a major service in allowing us to recall and recount just how far we have come during the past 15 years, and just how much we have achieved in that time. The House should he grateful for his contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.