To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has reached any conclusions on the future of wages councils following the public consultation; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend will have seen from the answer that I gave on 21 March to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that a decision on the future of the wages councils will be taken later this year.

In view of the Government's massive majority last night, does my right hon. Friend feel that he will be able to secure a majority to get rid of this further legislative relic of the decaying vegetation of socialism? Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he has another secret and sudden Bill, dripping wet with printer's ink, to bring before an eager and expectant House?

The only assurance that I can give my hon. Friend and the House is that no final decision has yet been taken, but that it will be taken later in the year.

Is it not a scandal that a number of employers pay their employees less than the wages councils' statutory minimum wage? If the Government abolish the wages council, what steps do they intend to take to protect people from such vicious exploitation?

Last year about 97 per cent. of the workers in wages councils industries were paid at least the minimum due. That is the result of recent inspections. However, we must also balance job prospects and numbers of jobs, as well as the considerations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Was not the original idea of the wages councils to protect the weakest employees who might not be able to negotiate adequately with their employers, and wast not the compromise by which young employees were taken out of the wages councils a ridiculous and illogical one? Should not the Government now move towards straightforward abolition?

It was a sensible thing to do at the time, but it is right to review the position now.

Recognising that there is once again a considerable head of steam among Conservative Members for the abolition of this so-called decaying vegetation of socialism, will the Minister explain why, in consultation exercises, virtually all those who responded from various industries were unhappy about the abolition of the wages councils?

On the contrary, in the six largest councils, which represent about 94 per cent. of all workers covered by wages councils, a majority of the employer bodies wanted abolition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the wages councils are anachronistic? Few Members represent people who work, for example, in the area covered by the ostrich feather and artificial fancy flower wages council?

Yes, there are a number of small wages councils in rather exotic industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mines inspectors and quarries inspectors the Health and safety Executive had in place on 1 April.

On 1 April 1989 the Health and Safety Executive employed 58 mines inspectors and 11 quarries inspectors.

In what disciplines are the mines inspectors placed and where are the specialist services based?

The inspectors are trained in specialties appropriate to their tasks. It may be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that in the past three years the ratio of mines inspectors to workers in British Coal mines has improved from one to 1,790 to one to 1,679. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a most welcome improvement.

Will the Minister acknowledge that accident rates are higher among the employees of the private contractors in British Coal collieries, and higher still among employees in the private licensed mines? The proposal to abolish the statutory health and safety responsibilities of the pit deputy is utterly unacceptable and we are not prepared to see a reduction in health and safety standards with the increase in accidents and deaths that it must entail, to prepare the way for privatisation of the industry.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on the latter point, but I know of no such proposal. I also agree that the accident rate in licensed mines, which is running at a higher rate than that in the industry generally, is a cause for concern. It is difficult to discern any particular reason for it, but certain things a re clear—they tend to be smaller enterprises, in some cases technology and high technology may not be in use to the same extent, and the seams may be difficult to work. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the inspectorate has had a number of constructive meetings with the Federation of Licensed Mines to see whether anything can be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received from chambers of commerce on his proposals to introduce training and enterprise councils.

Since the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" was published on 5 December last year, almost 4,000 individuals and organisations have expressed an interest in training and enterprise councils. Of these, 87 approaches have been from chambers of commerce.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that industry contributes some £15 billion per year in training employees and that the extra £3 billion from the Government, plus the direction of training being given to industry, will be a recipe for success? Does he agree, however, that the continuing support and working co-operation of local business as represented separately by bodies such as chambers of commerce, is also essential for success?

I entirely agree with both the points that my hon. Friend, with his considerable experience of the chamber of commerce movement, has put to me. Employers are now investing more than £18 billion a year in training. That is a substantial increase, but I entirely agree that the success of training and enterprise councils will depend heavily on the support that they receive not just from employers but from everyone in the local community.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is anxious that the business men who come forward should be of the highest calibre, but is he not concerned that many of them, as a result of their success, will not have the time to devote to training? What quality control procedure will there be to ensure the standard of training provision is of a uniformly high standard throughout the country, and not patchy, with variations from area to area?

National standards of training will, of course, continue. That is crucially important. Training and enterprise councils, however, are concerned with the local delivery of training. I believe that our proposals will enable leaders of business locally to be used, as it were, as boards of directors while Training Agency staff can be seconded to the councils. In that way, we shall have the best of both worlds.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of training has been that the trade unions have helped to destroy the apprenticeship system, because they wanted young people to be paid too much of the skilled wage at the beginning? Is there any more accord now? Do the trade unions intend to help the scheme on its way so that people will be trained and have real jobs when they have finished that training?

I very much hope that that is the case. Training and enterprise councils have not been a matter of controversy between Government and trade unions or, indeed, with other organisations. One of the areas in which the councils should work quickly and well is my hon. Friend's own city of Birmingham, where employers and unions have a good working relationship, and I should like to see that continue.

After the fiascos of the job training scheme, which achieved only a quarter of its targeted number of places, and employment training, which achieved only half the targeted number, why should the training and enterprise councils do any better when they have no extra funding, unbalanced and unrepresentative membership, and no public accountability for the public funds provided?

The most indicative thing about the hon. Gentleman is that he seeks to attack every training initiative that has been made over the past two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will give the hon. Gentleman the facts, so that he will know them in future. The fact is that some 180,000 people are now on employment training schemes. They have taken absolutely no notice of the hon. Gentleman's advice, and I advise the public to do the same.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in the east midlands during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

In the 12 months to March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands fell by 34,500 or 22·6 per cent. on a consistent basis. Unemployment in the east midlands is now at its lowest level for more than eight years, as it is in the country as a whole.

Has my hon. Friend noted the astonishing fall in unemployment in my constituency of Bosworth of 41 per cent. in the past 12 months? Does he agree that that success is partly due to the policies of Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, the Conservative-controlled council with the lowest rates in the east midlands? Does he further agree that that trend is reflected throughout the east midlands?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. The civilian work force in the east midlands is 1,844,000 —the highest level ever.

Will the Minister tell us the real unemployment figure, without the 19 different fiddles that he has introduced? When does he estimate that the unemployment figures will get back to 1979 levels?

Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the two years to March 1989 has fallen by 29·1 per cent.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that unemployment in the two years to March 1989 has fallen to a new low? Has he any explanation as to how that could have happened?

I can only assume that it is a combination of the Government's economic policy and the very sound judgment of my hon. Friend's constituents when they elected him as their Member of Parliament.

Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of pit closures in my constituency of Ashfield because of his Government's policy? Is he aware that at Stanton Hill in my constituency the pit is to close in August and there is no other industry? What is the Department of Employment doing to convince the chairman of British Coal to back off and instead of selling that land for housing development let us have some industrial units? Nottinghamshire county council is interested in doing just that. The Minister should pull his socks up and do something about it.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman, in his own inimitable style, would shout from the rooftops that in the two years to March 1989 unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 24·4 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in the south-west of England.

In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the south-west region was 1,965,000. That represents an increase of 213,000 or 12 per cent. since December 1983.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in unemployment of 213,000 reflects the strength of the small business sector in the community in the south-west? Is he aware that the Wansdyke enterprise agency in my constituency has made a considerable contribution to promoting small businesses? How does the Minister intend to support that and other enterprise agencies in the south-west?

On the first point, my hon. Friend is right. Self-employment in the south-west increased by 82 per cent. between December 1979 and December 1988. I know how supportive my hon. Friend has been of the Wansdyke enterprise agency and I understand that he is the honorary president of that organisation. The Government consider that the Wansdyke enterprise agency is doing a good job. We have put in substantial amounts of pump-priming money, but the future for financing the enterprise agency increasingly lies with the private sector and we hope that the enterprise agency will be successful in raising more support from that source.

Of the 213,000 people who found jobs in the south-west of England, where there are a lot of Labour voters, how many were in part-time jobs and for how many was the pay so low that they had to inquire about family credit?

It is impossible to answer that question.

I very much welcome the figures given by my hon. Friend, but does he agree that training plays an important part and that the need for training is great in the south-west, especially in Cornwall? In that context, although completely rejecting suggestions that the Government are somehow to blame for the rejection of Cornwall county council's applications for the European social fund, will my hon. Friend nevertheless redouble his Department's efforts to ensure that those applications are reconsidered by the Commission in Brussels?

We are, of course, supportive of training and we hope that there will be a satisfactory and keen response from the private sector in the south-west—and especially in Cornwall—to the opportunity for the development of training and enterprise councils. I note what my hon. Friend says about European funding, but I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend last Friday.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the United Kingdom.

Between March 1983 and December 1988, the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased be almost 3 million to more than 26.5 million —the highest level on record in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in west Norfolk unemployment has fallen by 18 per cent. —to 5·9 per cent.—as a result of the growth in enterprise and small businesses and that that will be enormously assisted by the recent announcement by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the railway line to King's Lynn is to be electrified? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the encouraging growth in self-employment locally has been reflected in the rest of the country?

There has been a substantial increase in self-employment, which has undoubtedly been one of the most important elements in the growth of employment. Between 1983 and 1988, there was an increase of about 840,000 in the number of self-employed.

Does the Secretary of State know that all over the developed world there has been an increase in the participation rate, with more and more women coming into the labour force? Our record is worse than that of any other country in terms of the growth of low-paid employment. Almost the majority of our work force is now low paid. Does the Secretary of State not understand that our high participation rate is a measure of underdevelopment? There are now more young people in higher education in South Korea than in Britain. The figures are nothing to boast about—they are a measure of our decline.

I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. International comparisons in the growth of employment show that the increase in numbers in employment between 1983 and 1987 in the United Kingdom equals that of the rest of the European Community combined. That is the measure of our success.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of the population of working age in employment in the United Kingdom is now 66 per cent.? How does that compare with other countries in the European Community?

It is higher than in the European Community. The point that the hon. Lady made about women in employment was equally dud. The participation rate among women in this country is much higher than in almost every other European country.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment rate in parts of my constituency remains more than a third, especially on major estates such as Braunstone, Beaumont Leys, Mowmaker, Stocking Farm and New Parks? Is he aware that on 4 May my constituents there will show what they think of the Government at the county council election, when they will have the chance to express their views through their votes?

Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I look forward to that election. He omitted to mention that unemployment in his area has fallen by 34 per cent. in the past two years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are bright prospects for increasing employment in our traditional port areas arising from the abolition of the national dock labour scheme and that a dock strike would damage those prospects?

I agree with both those points and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting in the points that he was prevented by the Opposition Front Bench from making last night.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training and information has been given to the agricultural inspectorate on environmental assessment associated with the Food and Environment Protection Act.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training and information has been given to the agricultural inspectorate on environmental assessment associated with the Food and Environment Protection Act.

Prior to undertaking their enforcement responsibilities under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectors are given a week's specific training on the requirements and implications of the Act. This is supplemented as required by further local and national training.

What publications have been made available to the agricultural inspectorate to assist it with this important work?

The full resources of the service are available to inspectors to enable them to equip themselves for the task. It is important to note that if they require specialised or specialist help in their investigations there are a number of agencies they can contact to provide that specific help.

Is the Minister aware of the great public concern about the harmful effects of pesticide residues coming into our food chain? Knowing that, what are the Government doing to provide more resources to help the agriculture inspectors to carry out their extra responsibilities?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to voice that public concern. It was to address that concern that the Food and Environment Protection Act and the structures under it were introduced. The resources now applied generally to the Health and Safety Executive compare in real terms as favourably, if not more so, with those given by the Labour Government.

Is it not the case that without the development of a range of "responsible" pesticides in the past few years this country might have gone hungry? Instead of condemning all pesticides, should we not concentrate on adequate testing to find out which ones may be damaging, if at all, either to people or to the environment and concentrate on weeding them out instead of building up an anti-pesticide hype across the whole spectrum?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. It is too easy to forget that the whole idea of a pesticide is to kill pests and that to that extent it must obviously be a dangerous and deleterious chemical. The effect of the advisory committee on pesticides is to ensure that only safe products are launched on the market and, perhaps more importantly, to ensure that the position can be reviewed as and when necessary in the light of increased knowledge.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in service industries in the north-west region in each of the last three years, expressed as a proportion of the labour force; and if he will give comparable figures for the south-east.

In each of the past three years, about two thirds of all employees in employment in the north-west were in service industries, compared with three quarters of all employees in employment in the south-east.

Does the Minister acknowledge that well-paid service jobs have mushroomed in the south-east to offset the decline in manufacturing, but that although manufacturing jobs have also collapsed in the north-west there has been no such growth in well-paid service jobs in that area? What plans does the Minister have to create a fairer distribution of those well-paid service jobs to areas such as the north-west?

The hon. Gentleman is not being his usual fair and generous self. There has been a rise in employment in service industries in the north-west of about 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the prosperity of manufacturing industry with the numbers of people actually employed in manufacturing. I take the example of Pilkington, a company that he knows well in his constituency and which he frequently and rightly praises. Employment in that key manufacturing company has fallen from 18,000 in 1980 to about 6,000 now.

Does my hon. Friend accept that as part of the tremendous success of the Government's economic and employment policies, the position in the south-east has changed dramatically? Does he also accept that many people in the south-east would not mind at all if some Government jobs were moved further north? Will he assure us that he and his colleagues in the Government will look again at the south-east, which has for too long been regarded as the place with the highest standard of living in the United Kingdom but which is under enormous pressures for a variety of reasons and requires a new look to be taken at it?

My hon. Friend is right. Curiously enough, yesterday, when I was in Oldham opening the fifth "Industrious Oldham Exhibition", I came across a manufacturer who some years ago had moved his manufacturing plant from Kent to Oldham. He had no regrets at all about the move. He is prospering in the constituency of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).

The Minister was welcomed in Oldham, where he saw the Labour council's efforts to attract manufacturing jobs to the area. However, will he reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)? It was difficult to follow the Minister, but perhaps he meant that the unfortunate result of investment in manufacturing industry—such as in Pilkingtons and in textiles—has frequently been that, despite the prosperity, the numbers of employed in those industries have fallen. If that is what the Minister is saying, does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point that well-paid service jobs are needed in the north-west even more than they are in the south?

I am glad to see that Opposition Members advocate the creation and support of well-paid service industry jobs, because that was precisely the point that I was endeavouring to get across. Perhaps, I did not completely succeed. I repeat that we must separate the prosperity of manufacturing industry from the numbers directly employed in it, which was why I gave Pilkingtons as an example. A service industry in the north-west that I know very well is the tourism and hospitality industry, jobs in that sector have increased considerably. Nearly 150,000 people are employed in tourism and hospitality in the north-west.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that Opposition Members constantly talk down the north-west? Parts of the north-west, such as Cheshire, are booming because of the vast increase in service jobs. Certainly in my constituency, banks, insurance companies and a vast number of other firms are bringing many service jobs into the area. It does us no good to have the north-west constantly unfavourably compared with the south-east. In fact, parts of the north-west, because of prosperity, are exhibiting the same kind of strains as the south-east.

My hon. Friend is right, but he should not, with respect, expect too much from the Opposition too quickly. We have at least now an acknowledgement that well-paid service jobs are important.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide comparable figures on training in 1979 and estimated for 1988; and if he will make a statement.

In 1979–80 some 91,000 adults entered Government training programmes and 216,000 school-leavers entered YOP, of whom 31,000 were given off-the-job training. In 1987–88 about 887,000 adults and young people started on . Government training programmes.

Will my right hon. Friend spell out the significance of those figures to the Opposition, who, like a pushmi-pullyu, one moment condemn every measure brought forward by the Government for training and the next bemoan the lack of Government interest in training? Will my right hon. Friend say something about his plans for the training of the self-employed?

The business growth training programme is certainly being introduced for helping with the training of self-employed people. I believe that that will be an important innovation for them. On the question of training figures, perhaps the most important aspect is that more young people are now undergoing training than ever before in our history.

Is the Minister not projecting a jaundiced picture when he talks about the number of people being trained under this Government? Is it not a fact that very often training is a convenient cover-up for the massive unemployment figures? Is it not also a fact that the apprentice training schemes, which we used to have in 1979, are now practically non-existent?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. According to the labour force survey, something like 328,000 people are covered by apprenticeships. What is of even more importance is the quality of the scheme for young people and the latest figures show that 85 per cent. of those who have completed YTS go into jobs or into further education. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

In spite of the impressive training figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that we still have serious skill shortages? With falling unemployment, does he agree that the best way to resolve that problem is to encourage people to stay at work longer and to cut out the tax breaks previously given to those who take early retirement?

One future development will be that more people will stay on at work for longer, if that is their wish. The policies of companies should be engineered to enable that to happen and to put more value on the experience of older workers.

How does the Secretary of State reconcile his response, which was a typical exercise in self-congratulation, with the CBI's recent statement that there it an unprecedented shortage of skills in our economy and that, since the CBI has collected those figures, the situation has never been more grave? Is it not the case that the Government have always seen training as a means of massaging the unemployment figures rather than as a means of dealing with skill shortages and giving our people the skills that they deserve so that they can do proper jobs?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The CBI backs in full—I regret that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) does not—the training and enterprise councils, which are designed to create more and better training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of the labour force survey; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.

The 1988 labour force survey was published in March and since then I have received a number of communications on it.

Order. There seems to be an undercurrent of discussion. Hon. Members should kindly listen.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that substantial reply. In the Employment Gazette did my right hon. Friend notice the figures that showed that 4·8 million people of working age received training and education courses in 1986 compared to 2·1 million in 1984? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures, taken with the labour force survey, the International Labour Organisation and OECD estimates of unemployment, show that the claims about unemployment and training levels made by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to be just mischievous nonsense?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. What the labour force survey reveals above all is that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has been fiddling the unemployment figures upwards for months.

How many people are now doing more than one job? I understand that more than 1 million people have either two or three jobs and that they are counted in the figures two or three times.

I do not have the full figures on that, but I shall seek to get them for the hon. Gentleman. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the labour force survey shows that 60 per cent. of the growth in employment is accounted for by full-time work and that in the past 12 months 75 per cent. of new jobs created have been full-time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the information coming from the labour force survey shows very clearly how much Scotland has benefited from the policies of this Government and indeed, that there are more people in work today? In particular, the growth in high technology, the new satellite industry, leisure, recreation and tourism shows that the Scottish economy is in good shape.

Yes, indeed. There has also been a very substantial amount of inward investment into Scotland, and into other parts of this country, which has helped create new jobs. It has been attracted into this country by the strength of the economy and the policies of this Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will meet the chair of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss the role of competent persons.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Many provisions in health and safety legislation require specified tasks to be carried out by competent persons. The Health and Safety Commission keeps these provisions under review. If the commission wishes to make proposals to my right hon. Friend which would affect the role of competent persons in any particular area, he will of course consider these proposals most carefully.

Will the Minister tell us who makes the judgment that someone has achieved the level of competence to be recognised as a competent person?

The reason why the concept of a competent person has been enshrined in our legislation for many years is that it puts the onus on the employer in those circumstances to ensure that the person is competent. I think that the hon. Lady will agree with me on reflection that to actually have a requirement of competency is often better than having a test of qualification. Whether somebody is competent is a matter of fact.

Will my hon. Friend explain how he can meet and discuss anything with a chair, please?

I am tempted to follow my hon. Friend in thinking about that. Perhaps I misread the question; I thought it probably said "chairman".

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's budget provision for the next three years.

Gross provision for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in the three years from 1 April last is £118·3 million, £125·9 million and £133·5 million, as shown in the public expenditure White Paper. The provision allows for real growth in the executive's activities in all three years, including an increase in the number of inspectors, and of inspections.

As the Government have also indicated that they will make additional funding available only in exceptional circumstances, will the Minister indicate, if the Government are committed to the Health and Safety Executives, whether a continuing rise in the accident rate would be one of the factors which would influence additional funds being made available?

As with all public expenditure, it is kept under review from year to year, but those are the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked for this year and the next two years.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he expects the Heath and Safety Executive to submit evidence to Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster? Does the executive's statutory responsibility to inform the public about safety matters or its liaison function with local authorities have any bearing on safety measures at football grounds?

It is not part of the Heath and Safety Executive's direct responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act or other legislation of that sort, but it is advising on safety measures and will continue to give such advice as is required both to the authorities in charge of the football grounds and to the inquiry.

How can the Minister give such complacent answers about funding when his Department is continually extending the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive without providing any extra resources to implement them? How can he justify introducing the new and important Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations this year without providing extra resources to enforce them? Is it not pure gesture politics to will the end but to refuse to will the means?

I have just said that we are increasing the resources and enabling the Heath and Safety Executive to increase its staff. The COSHH regulations are about much more than transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the numbers of YTS trainees who obtain employment within six months of completing their training.

A total of 82 per cent. of young people completing their YTS course obtain employment soon after.

That figure will be welcomed by all hon. Members, or at least by all Members who sit on the Conservative Benches. Is it not the case that the youth training scheme was, and still is, opposed by the Labour party? Is not the Government's record in stark contrast with the hollow words and crocodile tears of the Labour party?

The Labour party does not seem to be of one mind about YTS. Sometimes it supports it and sometimes the Labour party gets in its way. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the figures. In Barrow in Furness, 90·4 per cent. of young people who complete YTS obtain employment and that is even better than the national average.

How many of these trainees are disabled? What has been their comparative success rate in taking up jobs' after six months training?

I cannot answer that without notice, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and give him the figures.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of young people currently undertaking training on YTS.

At the end of February 1989, 401,500 young people were recorded as in training on YTS.

Is my hon. Friend aware that YTS has made a major contribution in Stevenage to many young people's successful transition from school to work? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the work in terms of the two year scheme is going well?

Yes. It has made a major contribution and it is improving the training record all the time.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

I have been asked to reply.

Was a computer error which indicated plenty of space on the terraces one of the contributory factors to the Hillsborough disaster? Would not computer failure at turnstiles checking ID cards repeat the conditions which led to those deaths? Is that not a powerful reason for the Government to withdraw their Football Spectators Bill, await the inquiry report and have a radical re-think with the emphasis on safety?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that it would be seemly to delay progress on the Football Spectators Bill for a short while in view of Saturday's tragedy at Hillsborough stadium. I do not wish to add to that statement and I think that we should allow a little time to elapse. However, the Government believe that the future of football in this country lies in a national membership scheme in designated grounds and now, it seems, in providing all-seated accommodation at major football grounds.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said that a European monetary union would lead to a European federation and a European Government. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remind my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the countries of the British Commonwealth and empire operated a single currency for more than 30 years under the guidance of a single reserve bank—the Bank of England—without ever coming near to a federation? Will he remind him of the guidance given in an old hymn:

"I do not care to see the distant scene

one step enough for me"?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words and his wisdom in these matters. However, I assure him that any recent announcement with regard to the Government about a united states of Europe is simply not on the agenda.

Having had 24 hours in which to appreciate the mood of the House and the country, are the Government now willing at least formally to suspend consideration of part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill until the Taylor inquiry has reported on the whole subject of safety at football grounds without the inhibition or pressure of concurrent parliamentary legislation?

The Third reading of the Football Spectators Bill in the House of Lords was fixed for 24 April. That has been postponed, and no new date has yet been arranged. The Bill is an enabling framework. The Government have already given a full commitment not to implement the membership scheme within that framework until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out. That commitment still stands and, obviously, now embraces the lessons to be learnt from this tragic event.

That answer is, I think, word for word, what the Home Secretary said yesterday and is equally lacking in meaning. May I put a wider point to the Leader of the House. Will the Government understand the advantages to the whole country of proceeding on this subject by co-operation rather than confrontation? Will the Leader of the House make it clear to the Prime Minister that, given goodwill on both sides, such co-operation is possible? It is absurd that this should become a party political matter. We do not want that to happen, and I do not think that the country wants it to happen.

Neither do the Government want it to happen, but if there is to be goodwill on both sides the hon. Gentleman had better listen to the replies that are given. I was not repeating what the Home Secretary said yesterday.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend give a firm and clear commitment to retain the pound sterling, and not to trade it for some kind of European funny money?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear yesterday the fundamental and far-reaching nature of the proposals in the Delors report. I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals for a united states of Europe are simply not on the agenda. There can be no question of future treaty amendments along the lines of the Delors report. We cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty that that implies. What we should be doing is pressing ahead with completion of the single market by 1992—a major task, to which the United Kingdom is totally committed.

I know that the Leader of the House will wish to join me in sending the sympathy of the entire House to the family and friends of the young Dundee girl who was killed by two Rottweiler dogs last Friday. The House cannot turn away from its clear responsibility to control and restrict the availability of licences for these and other powerful and potentially lethal dogs. Will the Leader of the House therefore consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to the initiation of an immediate review of the no-licence situation and the early introduction of legislation to ensure that these killer dogs are removed from, and safety restored to the streets of this country?

I shall certainly consult the Home Secretary. I have read about the recent tragic incident in Scotland. There has long been legislation to control dangerous dogs, and remedies are available once it is clear that a particular dog is dangerous. The breeding of dogs for sale commercially is already controlled by legislation. We do not think it sensible to try to extend these controls to private individuals who wish to sell the offspring of pets. We are therefore not contemplating legislation to control a particular breed or type of dog. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April 1989.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelmsford borough council on its "operation eyesore" this week for cleaning up litter blackspots in the area? If my Control of Litter (Fines) Bill is unsuccessful, owing to the absence of parliamentary time, will the Government be prepared to bring in legislation to give all local authorities the power to impose on-the-spot litter fines? Could shops, fast-food outlets and banks be compelled to keep the pavements outside their premises litter-free?

I certainly congratulate the Chelmsford borough council on the steps that it is taking to combat litter. I hope to be in Chelmsford on Friday to have a look at it. Litter is everybody's problem, and we are all involved in finding solutions. Local authorities, in particular, have a valuable job to do. The Government are considering a variety of measures to back up litter abatement activities, including those provided for in my hon. Friend's Bill.

Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that 7·5 million people in Britain now drink water with excessive levels of lead, and 5 million people drink water with nitrate levels which exceed the European standards? Can he deny that Britain is liable to be brought before the European Court for those infringements? What action do the Government intend to take to ensure that we are not prosecuted for failing to provide safe water for the people of Britain?

I cannot confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's figures, but I am glad to hear that he is supporting the steps that the Government are taking to improve the quality of water through the National Rivers Authority.

Will my right hon. Friend pass on to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister an invitation for her to visit Mid-Kent and other parts of Kent so that, with her considerable interest in the problems of the environment, she can see for herself the immense pressures to which that county is now subjected as a direct consequence of the success of her own policies?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will enjoy a visit to Kent when she can make it, and I shall pass on the invitation.

To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to her reply of 21 March, Official Report, column 511, if she will make a statement on the further proposals to help Brazil in research into forestry regeneration and allied subjects; and what resources are being earmarked for the conservation of the Amazonian rain forest.

I have been asked to reply.

At the top of their list of resource requirements, the Brazilians put the need for four large cargo and two personnel carrying helicopters. Can we help?

Assistance to the Environmental Protection Agency is one of the possibilities which I hope that the ODA team will be able to discuss when it visits Brazil, probably in May.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to make it clear to the Government of Brazil that there is no intention to internationalise the Amazon basin and that we respect their sovereignty, but, nevertheless, we expect the Brazilian Government to give a lead in conservation in that area and to make clear to the rest of the world the assistance that they require?

The Brazilian Government are well aware of their responsibilities. We are working closely with them and that is the best way to proceed.

Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will in no way support the funding of projects in the Amazon rain forest which lead to the destruction of that forest by either the EEC, the World bank or the international monetary fund? Will he also accept that the serious problem of the destruction of rain forests in Amazonia and elsewhere is partly caused by the debt crisis, which imposes an economic system on those countries which forces them to destroy the rain forest and thus damage the environment for the rest of the world?

The Government are trying to assist in solving the problem and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest otherwise.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, ahead of the Taylor inquiry, it is wrong to condemn the police for the Hillsborough disaster last Saturday? When I started going to Hillsborough football ground 40 years ago with my parents and my young brother and young sister, the crowd capacity was far greater than now, there were few policemen, fans were not segregated and people felt safe inside and outside the ground. In other words, if people only treated each other now as they did then, one policeman would not have been faced with the dreadful life and death decision that had to be made last Saturday and we may well have avoided the appalling loss of life.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Why people died is a matter for the judicial inquiry to determine and it would be premature for me to comment now.

Will the Leader of the House advise home workers in my constituency, who have just had their wages halved by F. K. I. Babcock, how they can survive when they have to pay soaring interest rates and manage with inflation running at nearly 8 per cent.?

That is not a matter for me to answer at the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me about it, I shall look into it.

To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding her recent visit to Africa.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the part that she was able to play in Namibia, and that the decision, endorsed by Cuba and Angola as well as South Africa, for the withdrawal of SWAPO forces fully vindicated her condemnation of their cynical contravention of the United Nations plan and the Geneva protocol, and their attempt to dominate elections down the barrel of a rifle?

My right hon. Friend is right. SWAPO's initial action caused tragic and unnecessary loss of life. But the UN plan has survived a severe test. What matters now is that the proposed cease-fire should he made to work and that preparations should resume for free and fair elections. We are doing everything possible to help. The House will welcome the role that our signallers are playing in manning the assembly points in northern Namibia.