To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of how many additional Health and Safety Executive inspectors will be needed to enforce the rules designed to eliminate Legionnaire's disease.

The Health and Safety Executive does not consider that additional inspectors are needed specifically for the enforcement of precautions against Legionnaire's disease.

Does the Minister accept that the recent disaster at the BBC, which caused the death of at least two employees and grave danger within the corporation and to passers-by, could easily be repeated? Is he aware that the executive has not enough inspectors to pay proper, regular visita to vast establishments, including those which, like the BBC, have cooling towers? What steps does he propose to take to minimise the likelihood of the spread of what could be a devastating disease?

As I have already said, the Health and Safety Executive does not consider that additional inspectors are needed in that kind of case. The investigation into the BBC by the Health and Safety Executive is still under way and we have to await the outcome. Obviously, any lessons learnt will be acted upon. The prime responsibility in such cases rests with the employers. There has been new HSE guidance on Legionnaire's disease, and I understand that the BBC was aware of it. That, of course, is one of the matters that we shall need to examine.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the impact of the single European market on health and safety.

I have not received any direct representations. However, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive consult very widely on matters concerning health and safety at work.

When the Secretary of State meets his counterparts in the EEC, will he insist that British machinery guard standards must become the norm and will not be reduced to the lower levels found in other European countries? If he fails to do that, are not machinery guarding accidents likely to increase after 1992?

The general arrangement is that European Commission directives lay down minimum standards, but national Governments may have higher ones. Generally speaking our health and safety standards are higher than those in many other European countries, and our national regulations set levels that are higher than the minimum laid down. Of course, that can apply to machinery guard standards as well, but it is important that, as far as possible, there are equal standards across the Common Market so as to have proper competition between the countries.

I am satisfied to a certain extent with what my hon. Friend has said, but, because we have higher standards, is there not the risk that after 1992 they may be eroded?

Our standards cannot be eroded below the level on which the House may decide in legislation. As far as possible, we are anxious that there should be high standards throughout the Community.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern that the Government will use the excuse of the single European market for further health and safety deregulation? Already, the major and fatal accident rate has risen by 12 per cent. during the past six years, not least because the Government have cut the Factory Inspectorate by no less than 20 per cent. during the same period. Will he, for once, use the European legislation to level up standards and give a commitment that he will introduce the mandatory occupational health provision that Britain—alone among its European competitors—still lacks?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Control of Substances Harzardous to Health Regulations which are coming forward and go some way to do what he suggests. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about fatalities. The number of fatalities in 1986–87, the latest year for which we have figures, is the lowest on record.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the Trades Union Congress; and what matters were discussed.

I last met representatives of the Trades Union Congress on Wednesday 18 May, when we discussed the new programme, employment training, which will be launched on 5 September. As a result of that meeting, the general council of the TUC decided to give the employment training programme its support.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Was he able to commiserate with the TUC at the failure of the TGWU, NALGO and NUPE to support the TUC on that line? Does not the attitude of those unions show a callous disregard for the interests of the unemployed who need to be trained for tomorrow's job world?

I certainly believe that the opposition to employment training which came from one or two unions is wholly disreputable and contrary to the interests of long-term unemployed people. Employment training will provide training for about 600,000 people a year at a cost of about £1·5 billion. The programme will go ahead in September and I very much hope that the Opposition will stop wobbling on this issue and give it their backing.

When the Secretary of State meets the TUC, will he discuss its document relating to 1992 and the changes regarding the EEC? He will be more aware than anybody that the Government have dragged their feet on implementing previous EEC employment directives on health and safety, discrimination at work, workers' rights in multinational companies and a host of other subjects. Will he give the TUC guarantees that he will implement the current six draft EEC health and safety directives?

I am happy to talk to the TUC on any subject that it wants to discuss, including 1992, but it seems to me that we in Britain will gain from a deregulated market in which job creation and opportunities for business are greatest, not which are the kind of provisions that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Is it the Government's view that existing trade union legislation is perfectly adequate to deal with industrial relations problems and has contributed to an improvement in industrial relations? If so, does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from possible changes in the dock labour scheme, further trade union legislation is not necessary?

We obviously keep trade union legislation and trade union law reform under consideration. There is no doubt that the Acts that the House has passed have contributed substantially to the improvement in industrial relations in Britain. We have taken a step-by-step approach, but we shall continue to keep trade union legislation under review.

When the Secretary of State met the TUC, did he discuss the current consultation on the possible abolition of wages councils? Can he tell the House what is going on? We had legislation in the previous Parliament. After consultation, it was decided to weaken protection for the lowest-paid workers in Britain. We understand that there is now consultation with employers and a threat to the remaining protection for 2 million of the poorest-paid people in Britain. May we know what is planned?

We certainly did not discuss the wages councils. They are kept under review, as the hon. Lady knows. I think that what she has in mind is a review which has been carried out, not by the Government, but by the Confederation of British Industry.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the severity of the damage that will be felt if the TGWU and NUPE do not come in and discuss these matters and join the approval situation and how it will particularly have a very adverse effect on the opportunities offered by the tourism industry?

I deplore what the TGWU and one or two other unions are doing in this respect. It seems to me that it is in no one's interests that unions should come out and oppose what is——

A rotten scheme.

—by any standards a major programme for the long-term unemployed. Those who, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), egg the unions on carry a disreputable and heavy responsibility. The employment training programme will go on because the Government are not prepared to turn their back on the long-term unemployed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will extend to men the approved code of practice for the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980.

The approved code of practice for the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 already applies to both men and women.

Is the Minister aware that recent studies in the United States and the United Kingdom have shown that lead can damage the fertility of men as well as of women workers?

I appreciate that there has been speculation along those lines. Obviously, we keep those matters under review, but our best information at present is that men are properly protected on the basis of 70 microgrammes per 100 ml of blood. If there were proper evidence to the contrary, we would consider it.

Does not the Minister always hide under the cloak of equality when lowering standards of health and safety at work? He removes protective legislation from women, whereas he should be leaving that legislation for women and ensuring, across the board, that it is extended to men. We are in favour of equality for both the sexes, not just one.

The short answer to the hon. Lady's question is no, but obviously there is a biological difference between men and women and those factors are taken into account when deciding what the correct lead levels should be. Women of reproductive capacity have to be protected, and that poses different medical and biological implications from those posed by the protection of men.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of young people completing YTS in 1987 in the Rotherham-Mexborough travel-to-work area secured full-time employment.

The information is not available in the form requested. However, the latest results from the Training Commission's complete, 100 per cent. follow-up survey of YTS leavers show that, of those young people who completed their YTS schemes in the Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster local authority districts, between April 1986 and December 1987, just over half—54 per cent—were in full-time employment.

That is bad enough, but it seems better than the reality on the ground. Does the Minister accept that the lack of opportunity for the young people in our travel-to-work area, particularly in the Dearne valley, is deplorable and utterly disgraceful? Does he accept that in the second half of 1988 it is outrageous that three quarters of our YTS leavers of 1987 still lack full-time employment?

I certainly accept that the employment situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and surrounding areas is more difficult than in other parts of the country, but, even in that area, unemployment has come down from 21·2 per cent. in May 1987 to 18·8 per cent. in May 1988. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently set out a whole range of measures to help employment in the area, including urban programme grants, derelict land grants and funding from the European Community. The regional directors of the Departments of Employment, of the Environment and of Trade and Industry are working closely together to try to improve the situation. It is improving.

Is my hon. Friend aware of Sheffield city council's decision not to implement the adult training scheme? What effect will that have on young people, and what can be done to ensure that those who want training obtain it, despite Sheffield city council's inaction?

The decision by the Sheffield authority is deplorable and can only harm those who need training to give them employment opportunities.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory answer from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss industrial relations; and if he will make a statement.

I have no present plans to have such a meeting. Over the last three years there has been a substantial improvement in industrial relations, with both fewer working days lost and fewer strikes.

When my right hon. Friend has a further meeting with the TUC general secretary, will he point out to him the importance of single union agreements in attracting inward investment to Britain, as Ford in Dundee has found? Will he stress to the TUC that British jobs are more important than the petty inter-union squabbles that are going on at present?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Such deals recognise that it is in everyone's interest that the business should be run profitably and free of strikes. I hope that the TUC will campaign so that we never see a repeat of the action which took place at Dundee, which deprived hundreds of unemployed people of jobs, rather than campaign against single union deals.

Is it not clear that our anti-trade union legislation is worse than any such legislation in any other European country, and is in line with what happens in Poland under General Jaruzelski? Is it not clear also that it is even worse than the legislation in the United States? Is it not about time that the Government stopped putting their foot on the neck of the ordinary working class and the trade union movement and began to accept that freedom of association, freedom to strike and freedom to have independent trade unions are as important in this country as is in Poland?

What the hon. Gentleman has said is absurd. We have turned our back on the disastrous years of the 1970s when bad industrial relations and strikes exported British job after British job. That is the record of the previous Labour Government. Under this Government the number of strikes has reduced. The number of days lost through industrial action have also reduced dramatically.

When my right hon. Friend has an opportunity to meet the general secretary of the TUC, will he discuss with him the excellent training that the EETPU provides for its members? One of its schools is in my constituency. Will he tell the general secretary that that is one of the responsible roles that trade unions should be pursuing?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of unions, such as the electricians and the engineers, have excellent training facilities. It is one of the areas in which trade unions should concentrate their efforts if they want to win members.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies are being made by his Department on the implications for the levels of employment in the regions of the United Kingdom of the completion of the European single market in 1992.

We are assessing the impact of the single European market on a continuing basis. It will provide great opportunities for business throughout the United Kingdom and should therefore have a beneficial effect on jobs. The impact in different regions in the United Kingdom cannot be predicted at this stage. It depends among other things on how well companies respond to the opportunities that are there.

I accept that the Minister has no responsibility for what Lord Cockfield may say in his capacity as a European Commissioner, but is he aware that during a visit to north Wales over the weekend Lord Cockfield stated that 60,000 new jobs would be created in Wales as a result of the single market? Is it not about time that the United Kingdom Government and other member state Governments quantified the regional impact of the single market? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the studies that have been prepared relate to sectoral changes or changes in specific areas of the economy, and that the overall regional impact has not been assessed properly in any member state?

With respect to the noble Lord, it seems extremely difficult to make accurate predictions for individual regions. We can all guess what it might be. The Cecchini report, which was produced for the Common Market as a whole, suggests that there might be an extra 1·25 million to 2·25 million jobs over five to six years. That is vague enough for a report that covers the entire Community, let alone individual regions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that European and other investors seeking to make green field investments in Britain will be interested primarily in the availability of single-union, no-strike agreements? Given the persecution of the electricians by the dinosaurs of the TUC, what assurance can my hon. Friend offer to European investors in future?

Assurance comes from individual unions that are far-sighted enough to see what is required.

Is it the case that in 1992 the poll tax will be imposed uniformly throughout the Common Market? Of course it will not, but such ideas are floated, and it is a tax which will benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Will the Minister leave this special Chamber and come to Scotland for a change, and meet the working class, who are organising, through the anti-poll tax unions, to fight back on the basis of non-payment? Will the Minister come to see reality for a change? Does he understand that on a Scottish, European and Socialist basis, there is a fight-back taking place, and I hope that the parliamentary Labour party will participate in it as well?

Just because I have the name of Johnny Cope, that does not mean that I am frightened to come to Scotland. I was there a few weeks ago.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the aims and objectives of the free market, which will be of great benefit throughout, are completely inimical to the nonsenses of regional policy, which are long since discredited? Will he reiterate that the best hope for employment throughout the United Kingdom and Europe is the truly free movement of goods and capital, when Governments will no longer try to force goods and capital to go to regions or anywhere else?

Yes, we want the free movement of goods and capital, as my hon. Friend said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that the research and laboratory services division of the Health and Safety Executive is able to carry out its responsibilities adequately.

I am satisfied that the Health and Safety Executive's research and laboratories division is able to carry out its responsibilities effectively. The management of the division is a matter for the executive.

In the light of the Minister's amazingly complacent answer, will he confirm that over the past six years the number of the division's scientific and technical officers has been reduced from 390 to 300, and that none of the £6·7 million announced last December will be used by the Government to rectify that appalling situation?

As I said, the way in which the Health and Safety Executive uses the moneys allocated to it is a matter for the executive, and it is for the executive to carry out its day-to-day responsibilities. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the provision in its entirety, I am bound to tell him that the provision made by this Government certainly matches in real terms that made by our predecessors.

How can the Minister justify a 24 per cent. cut in the Health and Safety Executive's scientific and technical staff over the past six years? How can he justify the fact that, as was said by my hon. Friend, as a result of the cut of 90 members of staff there is almost no research being undertaken into regulating low-output radiation from VDUs, which can cause foetal damage in pregnant women; that almost no research is being undertaken into establishing the known relationship between leukaemia and living near electricity power lines; and that, almost a year after the Zeebrugge disaster, almost no research is being undertaken into preventing the capsizing of cross-Channel ferries, when it is already known that Government tests show that 80 per cent. of those ferries are unsafe and do not meet international safety standards?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with employment questions rather than with transport questions. The mistake that he makes is the same as that which he made on radio this morning. He assumes that he can judge safety simply by looking at the number of people who may be employed. He does not seem to be able to get to grips with the fact that there are other dimensions to the argument, including proper, efficient working practices. There is no doubt in our minds that the research and laboratories division is able to carry out its responsibilities effectively.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost due to industrial action in 1987–88; what trend this figure shows in relation to 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

Two and a half million working days were lost through strikes in the year to March 1988. This compares with 3·3 million and 2·5 million in the previous two financial years. These are the best results since 1967. A major reason for this improvement has been the Government's reform of trade union law.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures provide yet more evidence of the success of the Government's industrial relations policy, which has brought about benefits not only for ordinary trade unionists but for members of the public, to whom the disruption of a decade ago is like a dark age to which no one wishes to return?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Last year 2·5 million working days were lost compared with an average of 13 million days a year in the 1970s, and in the manufacturing industry the average number of working days lost per employee in 1987 was almost one tenth of its 1970s average. Again, that shows the justification for and result of the Government's reform of trade union legislation.

Has the Minister made any estimates of the number of working people who should be on strike but are putting up with intolerable conditions because of the repressive measures passed four times over by the Tory Government?

Not only have industrial relations in Britain improved radically, but, fortunately, employment has, with unemployment coming down in every region. The only people who talk against that are the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the two-year YTS.

At the end of May 1988 there were 371,400 young people training on two-year YTS. Fifty-four per cent. of trainees entering their second year on the scheme have already gained a vocational qualification. The latest survey results show that when young people leave YTS, 75 per cent. go into jobs or into further education and training.

How does the figure of 75 per cent. of YTS trainees going into jobs or education compare with the figures for the Hounslow area and for Feltham and Heston?

For the Hounslow local authority district, which includes the Feltham constituency, the YTS follow-up survey results show that of those who left the youth training scheme between April 1986 and December 1987, 80 per cent. went into employment and a further 8 per cent. went into further education or training.

Is the Minister aware that in the northern region 40 per cent. of youngsters are on YTS and yet only 10 per cent. obtain full-time work when they leave? The northern region has the highest number of youngsters going back on to the dole with—the Minister can shake his head but these are true facts—more than 30 per cent. going back on to the dole compared with 12 per cent. in the south-east. Does the Minister think that the training that the youngsters are getting is worth while, or is YTS a complete and utter waste of time?

Most of the young people who go on the training say that it is worth while when we ask them at the end of their training, and that applies in all parts of the country. I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave at the beginning of his question, but they did not sound correct to me.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures that he has given the House today will be warmly welcomed in Chelmsford, where employers are suffering from a worker famine and they see this as a commitment to investment in the future? Is he also aware that one of the major employers in Chelmsford, the English Electric Valve company, is having great difficulty in finding employees for 300 places because there are not enough skilled people to take on? The Government's programme will not help that company in the immediate future, but it lays the foundations that will ensure that there is no recurrence of the problem in the future.

I am interested to hear the position in Chelmsford and I am glad to know that YTS is making a contribution. It sounds as though the employment training programe will too.

The Government know that the Labour party supports all training measures that meet national training needs in a serious way, but we find today's statement on youth training amazingly complacent, when Sainsburys are pulling out of YTS in many parts of the country and the youth training board points out that 100,000 youngsters—16 to 17-year-olds—a year go into dead-end jobs with no training at all. What are the youth training board and the Government doing about that?

An increasing number of youngsters are going into youth training and getting qualifications on the youth training scheme. Sainsburys is organising its own scheme. That is fair enough; it is entitled to do so. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by the remark s at the beginning of his question. If he was saying that he, and Labour Front-Bench Members are in favour of employment training, I am glad to hear it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the antagonism displayed by various Opposition Members to the YTS scheme explains, to a large extent, why in the northern areas that they represent YTS has not gained such acceptance or met with such success in bringing people full-time or even part-time employment? Are they not responsible for the fact that people are not properly employed in their areas?

I am sure that they bear a proportion of the responsibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what date he expects to fulfil his commitment to increase the agricultural and factory inspectors by 40 inspectors additional to those in place on 2 December 1987.

The Health arid Safety Executive plans to increase the number of factory inspectors in the inspectorate to around 588 by 31 March 1989 and to increase the number of agricultural inspectors in the inspectorate to around 160 by 31 March 1989.

Since his statement on 2 December last year, is the Minister aware that instead of progress being made, there are already 15·5 per cent. fewer agricultural and factory inspectors in the inspectorate, and that resignations are greater than recruitments? Is the Minister not disappointed with the abysmal policies that he is bringing before the House? Is he not aware that those policies will add to the accidents and injuries if something is not done to speed up the recruitment of inspectors?

I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Although the figures announced at the end of last year worked on the assumption that there would not be the wastage that has occurred since in terms of inspectors leaving the inspectorate, the figures that I gave show precisely the same net increase, so the position is as it was announced last year.

Does not a successful record of health and safety at work depend first and foremost on the determination of operators to abide by safety rules, which exist in the great majority of companies because of Government vigilance? Most accidents occur because safety rules are ignored, not because they do not exist, or because machine guards are not available.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. When talking about resources and inspector numbers, it is all too easy to forget that the prime responsibility for health and safety must lie with employers and employees. I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right to remind us of that.

When will the Government recognise that there are now many more, smaller, dangerous workplaces to be inspected, there are many more self-employed people, for whom the inspectorate has responsibility, and above all, that under this Government, the inspectorate has been given many more responsibilities, including responsibility for gas appliances, the implementation of the new pesticide regulations and the transportation of hazardous substances? Is not Government behaviour the height of complacency when, against that background, a considerable number of inspectors are continuing to resign? There is some doubt about the Government achieving even the increase of 40 in the factory and agricultural inspectorates. When will the Government give the Health and Safety Executive the money it needs to halt the rate of resignations among inspectors?

I more than appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is not complacency to make the point that one cannot say that there is a direct trade-off between the number of inspectors employed and the number of accidents that occur. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said a moment ago, the problem is wider than that. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate on that level, if he considers inspectors as a percentage of the employees they cover he will discover that under this Government the position has remained precisely constant with the position under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman knows that those are the facts, but I again tell him that that is not the whole picture.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the accidents that occur in agriculture would not be influenced by additional inspectors, because as often as not they are caused by the miscalculations of operatives, often working in isolation?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that in agriculture the rate of accidents is troubling. Today, figures were announced showing that the deaths in agriculture amounted to one more than last year, but last year was the lowest on record. That is not a reason for complacency but it is a reason for putting the problem into perspective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has plans to seek to increase the penalties available where health and safety law has been contravened.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had on reviewing the penalties available for contraventions of health and safety legislation.

It has been suggested that the maximum fines available to magistrates' courts for breaches of health and safety legislation are not high enough. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought the views of the Health and Safety Commission and is now considering with colleagues whether there is a case to be made for reviewing those penalties.

Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the chair of the Health and Safety Commission earlier this year to the Select Committee on Employment when he said that it was morally unacceptable that management could be fined just £200 for a death that occurs at work? Will he approach the Lord Chancellor for stiffer penalties and consider increasing the £2,000 limit that can be imposed by magistrates' courts?

As a reflection of the concern expressed by the chairman of the commission we started the exercise of approaching colleagues to see whether the maximum fines available to magistrates' courts could be increased. A point that is sometimes not appreciated is that the limits on fines that can be imposed relates only to the magistrates' courts. For offences tried on indictment, fines are unlimited. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have taken heart from two recent decisions where fines of £250,000 and £500,000 were imposed. If the magistrates feel that their powers of punishment are insufficient, they can commit to the Crown court anyway.

I thank the Minister for his reply about consultation and investigation. However, does he accept that, since his Government believe in deterrence, one could come to the conclusion from the statistics that there is a case for extending penalties for people who contravene the health and safety regulations.

Again I understand the sentiments that prompt that question. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take account of the fact that before a Crown court the fines are unlimited. The problem we are discussing is whether the penalties available to a magistrate should be greater. As I have said, a consultation exercise is taking place precisely because the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) are shared by us.

Is it not manifest that many accidents cause enormous distress not only to the person injured but to the employer, and that in many cases a financial penalty may be much less effective than insisting on some form of retraining and re-education of both workers and employer? Is my hon. Friend confident that the list of penalties available includes such re-education?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right to make the point that financial penalties are one thing, but that the degree of shame and opprobrium that particular cases can bring on employers is something of which many are conscious.

Will my hon. Friend consider the penalties and the case against employees, who often hurt themselves by refusing to use the appropriate methods laid down by their employer? There are insufficient charges brought against employees who deliberately break the rules of their employers.

I suspect that my hon. Friend speaks from experience. It is a fair point to make. In civil proceedings, contributory negligence can play a part. In the criminal law, there is clearly an obligation on employers and that obligation has to be met.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the additional funding sought by the Health and Safety Executive for the executive during the year 1988–89.

The Health and Safety Executive did not seek any additional funding at the time of the 1988–89 Supply Estimates.

Is the Minister aware that, for example, the Hospital Physicists' Association has stated that the equivalent of one Chernobyl a year is being delivered to patients in Britain from old and poorly maintained radiation equipment? Will he therefore state clearly what the Health and Safety Executive asked for in 1989–90 to deal with this and many other pressing problems?

I had hoped that my initial reply to the hon. Gentleman would make it clear that the Health and Safety Executive did not seek any additional funding at the time of the 1988–89 Supply Estimates. Certainly, as far as the PESC round was concerned, it made its bid there for resources and as a result of the points that it made an extra £6·7 million was introduced—something that was very much welcomed by the chairman of the commission.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister recall that 40 years ago Aneurin Bevan described her party as being "lower than vermin" and its policies as organised spivvery? In the light of her verminous attack on the National Health Service and her patronage of spivs in the private sector, has anything changed?

A great deal has changed for the better in the National Health Service under a Conservative Government: more resources, more doctors, more nurses, more patients treated and more success. Yes, a great deal has changed for the better under a Conservative Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In connection with the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service., does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Conservative Minister of Health who, in a White Paper in 1944, introduced the basis of the Health Service; that, furthermore, it was a Labour Government who introduced prescription charges in the 1940s; and that this Government, conducting their present review, have, since 1979, increased spending on the Health Service by 39 per cent., even after inflation?

Yes, the National Health Service should be congratulated on its 40 years of achievement, the greater part of which has been conducted under a Conservative Government. Successive Conservative Governments have provided a standard of resources for the professions to deliver a standard of service undreamed of many years ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that M r. Nigel Harris, the distinguished surgeon who shared a general election press conference with her last year, asked me this morning to give her a direct personal message? M r. Harris asked me to tell the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question.

Mr. Harris asked me to tell her—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Order. A question at Question Time, please.

It will be well within your recall, Mr. Speaker, that I began this question "Is the Prime Minister aware". Dodges such as we are getting from the Tories do not count except to scar them in the eyes of the public.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey to everyone who asks him the fact that the Government are entirely committed to the principle of the National Health Service—that all people should have access to the best possible medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will point out to Mr. Harris that the Conservative party's record in government is the clearest possible evidence of that commitment.

Patently, neither Mr. Harris nor others in whole areas of the medical profession will believe a word of what the Prime Minister has just said. Given the record and philosophy of her Government, is it not obvious to everyone that her intention is to create a two-tier Health Service, with a superior level for sale and an inferior level that remains free? Why does she not heed the advice of the British Medical Association, the Select Committee on Social Services and people like Mr. Harris and provide £1 billion to £1½ billion now to avert crisis this year? If she is really committed to the Health Service, will she give that money now?

Last year the right hon. Gentleman asked for an extra £2 billion, which was to sort out all the problems of the National Health Service. An extra £2 billion has been provided this year. In fact, we are dedicating more resources than any previous Government to the Health Service. The doctors know that there are more doctors and that they are better paid; the nurses know that there are more nurses and that they are better paid and the doctors and the nurses know that they look after more patients in better hospitals than ever before. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman still accepts, like his predecessors, that people are free to spend their own money as they choose. Or is he denying that now?

If the Prime Minister believes that people are free to spend their money as they choose, will she tell us why she and the Chancellor did not respond to the repeated demands from the huge majority of people in this country to spend money on the Health Service instead of giving £2½ billion to the richest people in the land? If the Prime Minister has provided that extra money for the Health Service, why does she think that it was necessary for the BMA and the Select Committee this week to call for an extra £1 billion to £1½ billion to avert a crisis? I ask her again: will she provide the money now to avert a crisis this year?

The people of this country are providing more money for the Health Service out of a growing economy. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that people have no right at all to have any money available to spend. I know that arithmetic is not the right hon. Gentleman's strong subject, but in 1978 expenditure on the National Health Service was £8 billion, whereas this year it is £23 billion. Even the right hon. Gentleman should know that that is a lot more.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

rose—[Interruption.]——

Order. I ask the House to calm down.

Perhaps I may change the subject, Mr. Speaker. Is it not time that we tried a more imaginative and radical approach to the problems of yobbish hooliganism and drunken violence—[Interruption.] Could we not try a little pain and humiliation—the birch and perhaps a modern version of the stocks? Would not those tried and tested punishments appeal to the liberals, the wets and the worthies as being less barbaric than the failed alternative of imprisonment——

Briefly.

Could we not proceed in that more enlightened and progressive direction?

Increased sentences have been provided and are available to magistrates. Many people are now considering different forms of sentences to deal with very bad hooliganism. As part of their sentence, people should have to report to specific places under the offices of the probation service or undertake some form of community service. They should do this regularly, at weekends or at times when they might otherwise be out engaging in the hooliganism that my hon. Friend condemns. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has that very much in mind. I do not believe that the route that my hon. Friend proposes would meet with sufficient support to enable such measures to get through the House or with sufficient support from the whole country.

On the question of the Iranian Airbus disaster, would it not have been more prudent for the Prime Minister to confine her comments to expressions of regret and sympathy until the inquiry result was known? Why have the Government taken no initiative to bring the peace-keeping forces in the Gulf under the international legitimacy of the United Nations organisation?

The first sentence of the statement said that the British Government profoundly regretted the loss of life on the Iranian airliner and extended their deep sympathy to the bereaved. The statement went on to point out that this had been a tragedy for all concerned. One cannot put navies into the Gulf to defend shipping from attack by either side to the conflict without giving them the right to defend themselves. No one would do that.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great efforts that have been made to devise a form of voluntary no-fault visitors' personal accident insurance? That would have saved my constituents who were injured at Abbeystead a great deal of heartache had it been in force four years ago. When the scheme is launched this coming Monday, will my right hon. Friend read it and consider giving it her backing and encouraging its widespread use?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything that she, like a number of others, has done to get such a voluntary scheme launched. Proposals for a statutory scheme have been argued for a long time. A voluntary scheme is an excellent idea and certainly would have helped the people at Abbeystead. I shall look carefully at the scheme once it is published.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that today there are many nurses in this building who will have listened with interest and disgust to some of her answers? They will deliver a petition to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), which he will present to the House. Among its demands is a call for full implementation and funding by the Government of the recommendations of the review body for Health Service staff in the current year. Does the right hon. Lady realise that those nurses are here not only on their behalf but on behalf of their patients and the people who make up the health teams? Does she realise that they have come to the House looking for the first time—I fear that it will be in vain—for a spark of humanity from her?

The nurses, doctors, dentists and allied medical professions have review bodies. Wages for other groups are negotiated through other bodies. The total cost of the review body for nurses, which is funded by the people, is some £803 million this year. I remind the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he will remind the nurses, that the last Labour Government cut nurses' pay by 21 per cent. We have increased it by 43 per cent. in real terms. The money comes from the same place from which it always comes—people's earnings.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to congratulate Mr. Gorbachev on his political tour de force last week and on his struggle to bring Russia into the 20th century? Does she agree that until we see a real reduction in spending on defence by the Warsaw pact countries it would be unwise to relax our guard?

I gladly congratulate Mr. Gorbachev on the boldness of his vision and the resolve with which he and those who are with him are carrying it out. As far as defence is concerned, we see no evidence of any reduction in the effort to modernise the Soviet armed forces. One of the reasons why we can so readily encourage Mr. Gorbachev's effort on internal reform is that we are staunch members of NATO and we keep our own conventional and nuclear forces fully up to date.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to scotch rumours that she will change the basic funding method of the National Health Service? The country and the medical profession are saying that insurance and other methods will be more expensive and much less efficient. Will she give her support to a National Health Service that is free at the point of need?

Yes, I thought that I had made it perfectly clear in answer to another question that the National Health Service will continue to be available. It is financed in two ways now: the direct taxation, and the part that is conributed together with the national insurance contributions. That is a very small part of the total finance, the rest of which comes direct from taxation.