To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to stimulate skills training in the tourism and catering industries; and if he will make a statement.

Skills training is crucial to secure the quality and professionalism which the tourism and catering industries need to keep their competitive edge. The Government are helping across the full range of training programmes, including the youth training scheme, employment training and the newly launched business growth training, and are working with the industry through the tourism training initiative. The emerging network of training and enterprise councils will provide a further boost for skills training.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. He will be aware of the excellent contribution being made to training in catering and tourism by Blackpool and Fylde college. Does my Friend feel that with more than 1,000 people coming into this industry every week enough is being done elsewhere to meet the industry's training needs?

My hon. Friend is right about the Blackpool and Fylde college. The close liaison between the college and the hoteliers of Blackpool in tailoring training to fit employers' needs is widely regarded as exemplary. The industry is seeking to recruit nearly 1,000 new employees per week. There are far more people than ever before in training for our tourism and hospitality industries and there are an increasing number of courses right across the country, be we need even more.

Is the Minister aware that the problem of low pay is great and growing in catering and tourism? Does he not understand that the problem with the whole of the Government's strategy is that if they keep encouraging low pay, we cannot achieve higher standards of skill and the proper management of enterprise because the two aims are contradictory? When will the Government give up their obsession with low pay so that we can achieve decent standard in industry and employment?

The hon. Lady asks the same question almost every Employment Question Time. The answer is that the industry increasingly is improving its remuneration package and far more people than ever before are realising the industry's potential for career opportunities.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent courses available in catering and similar subjects at the Lancaster and Morecambe college of further education, which is one reason why unemployment in our area has fallen yet again?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The courses at the Lancaster and Morecambe college are excellent and I have visited the college. I must point out that the college head was trained in my own constituency, at Nelson and Colne college, and I have a high regard for him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of which European Community countries have statutory wage provisions.

Five EC countries—France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg—have a statutory national minimum wage on various bases. Ireland and the United Kingdom have statutory minimum rates of pay in certain industries.

Does the Minister agree that the. United Kingdom and Ireland are at the bottom of the league in terms of low pay for workers and protection for those workers? Should not the Government be trying to improve their record instead of undermining and trying to destroy the wages council structure?

I rather agree with the report that Mrs. Barbara Castle produced when she was doing our job.

That is a bit old hat. It was 1968.

She said:

"The introduction of a national minimum will add to labour costs. This could in turn increase the level of unemployment."

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will make strong representations against any increase in social regulation from Brussels which might damage employment-generating prospects and that they will be especially vigilant to preserve the flexibility of the English labour market?

Yes, indeed, for the reasons that I gave in answer to the previous questioner.

I wonder whether the Minister remembers the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying on television on 28 April:

"half average earnings in this country, which is poor; that's poor—half average earnings."

We are consulting about the abolition of the wages councils and we shall consider the results of those consultations when we see them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great myths of the Community is that one can bring out statistics to prove that we should all abide by the same rules on salary and conditions of work and that almost anything that happens in the workplace can be regularised throughout the Community? Despite that myth, however, does he agree that each country has different living standards, different costs of living and different indices and that in the short term it is impossible to have a standard answer for every occasion when such foolish questions are asked of the Department of Employment?

I agree that not only the statistics but the traditions of wage bargaining and similar arrangements are different in the different countries. They are not comparable one with another. However, all sorts of studies have shown that minimum wages tend to increase unemployment.

When the Secretary of State leapt to the defence of the Prime Minister's attack on the supposed European Socialist superstate, did he include in that the minimum wage provisions in the EEC? Is he aware that Britain is the only country in the EEC with neither a statutory minimum wage nor any statutory underpinning of collective bargaining, which amounts to the same thing? Do the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister not realise that the risk after 1992 is not of a Socialist superstate but of a capitalist jungle in which bad employers will compete, not by improving quality and price, but by driving down working conditions?

I am surprised at some aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question. He spends a lot of time telling us that we are doing the wrong thing by introducing statutory controls and statutory arrangements into free collective bargaining, but he has just urged us to follow the example of European countries which have greater statutory controls on free collective bargaining.

As those without jobs are the poorest in our society, should we not try to reduce the barriers to employment rather than increasing them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the privatisation of skill centres.

Preparations are well advanced to offer the Skills Training Agency for sale by private tender. All preliminary expressions of interest are being recorded by the Government's sale advisers, including the proposals for a management buy-out.

What is the figure in the Secretary of State's brief for the amount that the Government hope to raise through the sale of skill centre land and buildings?

The straight answer to that is that we are taking advice from property advisers on that point. I am glad that we have now been able to employ property advisers. They are in the process of valuing the sites and clearly the Government will want a fair price for those sites.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will consider applications and proposals to purchase individual skills centres rather than just the national network? Will he also confirm that selling skill centres into the private sector will put them in a better position to provide the flexible response that the private sector has already clearly demonstrated that it is able to do?

I entirely agree, especially with my hon. Friend's second point. At the moment we have had about 40 expressions of interest in the purchase of skill centres, and they will be considered. It must be understood that the present position of the Skills Training Agency is not sustainable. About one third of the centres are seriously underused and are now making a loss approaching £20 million per year.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Deptford skills centre is on freehold land which already has B1 planning permission? Will he speculate on what that site will be worth on the open market in that part of London? What did the Minister of State mean when he told me in a written answer that he would make provision for the Government to share in any development gains—not to take them, but simply to share in those windfall gains? Why are the public not to have the full value of any increase in those assets?

It is certainly the Government's aim that the public should have the full value of the sites. However, I do not believe that it would be sensible for me to speculate about the value of a particular site, especially as we have just appointed a firm of surveyors to carry out the exact exercise required by the hon. Gentleman. Surveyors were appointed following a competitive tender, which is a sensible and businesslike approach.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the unsatisfactory situation at the Perivale skill centre in my constituency, which is managed from the Twickenham skill centre some considerable distance away although all the jobs and industry are in the Perivale area? Will my right hon. Friend seek to achieve the division of the management of those two skill centres before any privatisation?

It will not be before privatisation, because privatisation will take place over the next few months, but I will ask my advisers on the privatisation to take that into account.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, 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 what plans he has to eradicate discrimination against disabled people in employment and seeking employment.

It is in the employer's interest to adopt good policies and practices on the employment of people with disabilities. My Department will continue to encourage and help them to do so through its disablement advisory service and other appropriate media.

The Minister's Department has not been very successful. Does the Minister realise that only 31 per cent. of disabled people below pension age are in jobs? Will he explain why it is illegal to discriminate in employment against a person because of colour or sex, but it remains lawful for any employer to discriminate against a person because of his or her disability? Will the Government legislate to do something about that problem?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will know that statistics are rather thin in that area—

There is the OPCS survey.

The Department has therefore commissioned a study to provide information on the numbers, the distribution, the characteristics and the needs of people with disabilities in the labour market. We hope to have the results by the year end.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much better to encourage employers and to give them practical help than to legislate?

My hon. Friend is right. Through our mainstream programmes during 1987–88, we helped about 117,000 people at a cost of £193 million, and through our programme specifically geared to help the disabled we helped 78,000 people at a cost of £135 million.

Do not the OPCS figures referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) shout of discrimination against disabled people? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even those with jobs were found to be mainly on very low pay? What is the hon. Gentleman's response to the report of Dr. Eileen Fry on discrimination against disabled people in employment? What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the case that is known to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—where a public employer recruited a disabled young woman only to exclude her from the superannuation scheme because of her disability?

If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me about that particular case, I will look into it. On his earlier points, I repeat that the Government do not favour the legislative route. Nevetheless, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have instituted a major review of our whole approach to the disabled in employment and, of course, there is the earlier study to which I referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he is making towards agreement on a common classification scheme for hotels, boarding houses and self-catering accommodation throughout the United Kingdom.

The tourist boards for England, Scotland and Wales have now agreed common criteria for their classification and grading scheme for serviced accommodation. The English and Scottish boards have reached agreement on uniform criteria for self-catering accommodation. The English tourist board plans to begin inspections using the new criteria in September 1989, and to include the new classifications in accommodation guides for the 1991 season.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased to hear his answer, but it seems to imply that there will be different classification schemes for the catered and non-catered sectors. I should be grateful if he would confirm whether that is the case. If so, is it not rather unsatisfactory and likely to confuse the general public? Would it not be better to have a symbol common to both but different in some way, such as a filled-in crown for the catering sector to show that the inner man is being looked after, and an outline crown for the non-catered sector?

My hon. Friend has written to me on that point. I understand that the English tourist board considered an outline crown symbol for self-catering, but it was rejected because it wanted to draw a clear distinction between serviced and self-catering accommodation. My latest understanding is that it is proposing a key containing a crown, so there is an element of compromise.

Will the Minister use his offices to encourage the English tourist board to reach a final agreement on the matter? The Scottish self-catering sector is concerned that the general aim, which everyone should endorse, of a common crown system throughout the United Kingdom is to some extent being thwarted because of what is probably an unnecessarily severe view on the part of the English tourist board about the discerning abilities of the public with regard to self-catering and fully-supportive holiday accommodation, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said.

The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to move towards common criteria. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that the changes that I have announced move increasingly towards the Scottish system, in which the classification introduces a quality assessment—something that we do not have in England.

I thank my hon. Friend for his progress report, which will be welcome in Wessex where many farmers are seeking to diversify in that area. However, who is to bear the cost of the new classification and what plans does my hon. Friend have for revising and updating the guide, as that is a crucial aspect?

We hope that in the long term the classification scheme will become self-financing, but in the short term, we estimate that it will cost about £468,000 net in 1989–90, which I hope will he reduced to about £300,000 net by 1992–93.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reduction there has been in the number of people on YTS in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the likely future trends of YTS.

About 390,000 young people were in training on YTS in both March 1988 and March 1989. We keep the scope and role of YTS under review to ensure that training for young people continues to meet the changing needs of the economy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am surprised that nationally YTS numbers have not yet started to fall, although they have clearly evened out. In the south-east, and in my constituency of south Dorset the number on youth training schemes is declining as a result of demographic changes and extra jobs. As the number of people on youth training schemes declines, how can the current level of spending on training be redirected to other forms of training and to helping people to obtain a real technological education?

We believe in improving the quality of training and we are trying to achieve that. In particular, we are having a greater drive towards youth training schemes resulting in qualifications. That is all part of the greater concentration on the outcome of training schemes. At present about 63 per cent. of those who complete youth training schemes gain qualifications.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Wales and some other regions there has been difficulty in finding suitable quality trainers for YTS? Will he ensure that the training and enterprise councils have sufficient funds to recruit trainers and to keep an ongoing check on the quality of training that they provide for young people?

Yes. Part of the point of the training and enterprise councils is to involve employers more so as to improve the quality of the training offered, not only on YTS but on other schemes as well.

As the construction industry training board is the managing agent for YTS in the construction industry, and as that industry's training record is abysmal, is it not clearly important that the construction industry training board should be retained?

My hon. Friend will know that we have that matter under consideration, and that it follows from what was said in the recent White Paper.

Given the question posed by the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and the possible decrease in the number of YTS trainees, what measures will the Government take to ensure that 16-year-olds who find immediate employment on leaving school also find employment which guarantees training opportunities? If they do not, will there not be a danger that those youngsters will find themselves with no training, no hope and no future jobs?

The labour market for young people is changing as their numbers decrease and their bargaining power in the market increases. However, the system should remain voluntary because not all young people want to be forced into a job that guarantees particular arrangements. That thinking underlies all our policies. It is also why we intend, as I said earlier, to improve the quality of YTS training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have consulted jobcentres in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Precise information is not available. However, I would expect the total to be broadly similar to the 29 million inquiries recorded in 1985–86, the last year for which comprehensive information is available.

What proportion of the inquiries received by jobcentres came from the unemployed and from job changers, and how many people were placed in jobs as a result of those inquiries?

The last information that we have is from a sample survey in 1987, which indicated that about 83 per cent. of unemployed claimants used the jobcentre network. In 1988–89, 1·9 million job seekers, 1·5 million of whom were unemployed, were placed in jobs.

Are not the numbers of staff in jobcentres now being reduced? The Under-Secretary of State has an opportunity to provide a better service to the unemployed. Why is he throwing that away?

I have to make the point—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of it—that unemployment is falling substantially. Therefore, we obviously have to look at the jobcentre network. Having said that, we are at the same time trying to improve the quality of service for those individuals who are, sadly, unemployed. Even at present, the jobcentre network employs about 6,800 people.

Why does not my hon. Friend consider merging jobcentres and unemployment offices as quite a few people still seem to get lost somewhere between the two? It seems self-evident that people who are registering as unemployed should be directed at least to somewhere in the same building so that they can be found employment as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend has a good point. Obviously, we have been thinking about this, and there have been 79 pilot schemes in which we have considered the options for integrating unemployment benefit offices and jobcentres. As he will know, the employment service is intended for agency status.

Does the Minister not understand that one of the main barriers against people finding work at present is that more than 150 major United Kingdom employers are buying personnel management systems which claim, on the basis of a 15-minute pencil and paper test, to establish the honesty and emotional stability of job applicants? Does the Minister approve of employers taking such a crude approach or does he intend to do something to stop that abuse?

With respect, I am not sure that I fully understood the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the employment service for which my Department is responsible, I should have thought that the placement figures that I gave earlier indicated the success of what we are trying to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made on employment training in Yorkshire since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

Employment training continues to make excellent progress in Yorkshire. Almost 20,000 people are currently in training. This reflects the success of employment training across the country.

Does not that reply show that employment training is proving highly successful in the Yorkshire area—perhaps more so there than in any other area of the United Kingdom? Would my right hon. Friend care to join me in congratulating the training agencies in and near my constituency—for example, the Kirklees chamber of commerce—for responding so positively to the challenges presented to them by employment training?

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says, particularly about Kirklees chamber of commerce, which I know and admire. I am glad to say that in Yorkshire generally, unemployment has fallen by an average 24 per cent. in the past 12 months.

There may be some effective operations in Yorkshire, but does the Secretary of State accept that he should be aware—if he is not, some of his colleagues in the Department should be—that there are grounds for serious concern in certain parts of Yorkshire, and certainly in the metropolitan area of Rotherham, which deserve serious attention?

I shall certainly look into any points that the hon. Gentleman wants me to consider. After only eight months in operation employment training now has about 185,000 people in training—the best start for any adult training programme that we have ever launched.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work days lost through strikes in (a) February 1979 and (b) February 1989.

Nearly 2·5 million days were lost through strikes in February 1979. In February 1989, it is provisionally estimated that 58,000 working days were lost. In the year to February 1989, 3 million working days were lost. In the year to February 1979, 13·3 million working days were lost. It is in everyone's interest that this improvement should be maintained.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one absolutely certain way of increasing the number of days lost through strikes would be to repeal the Government's employment legislation, as some union bosses want their lackeys in the Labour party to do?

That is entirely right. Those problems would be made even worse if any of the proposals on the extension of secondary action and secondary picketing were ever adopted in this country. The sort of proposals that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the Labour party are putting forward represent a charter for strikes.

Does it not appear that as we head towards a summer of discontent, employment legislation is taking this matter out of the hands of trade union leaders to such an extent that unofficial strikes are likely to increase enonnously, as inflation rises and the value of wages falls?

That is not true. The hon. Gentleman was drawing a comparison with the winter of discontent, when the headlines in February 1979 ran as follows:

"Health warning as the rubbish piles mount up";

"Ambulance men walking out";

"Strike in children's wards".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that after 10 years of changes in industrial relations law, management still has a responsibility clearly to explain to each employee why a particular pay claim can or cannot be accepted? To that extent, does he agree that the country is looking to employers and unions in the electricity supply industry to work out a solution to their problem without industrial disruption?

Yes, what my hon. Friend says is wise. It is clearly not in the interests of the public or of anyone working in those industries that industrial action should take place.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that there were no strikes in Hitler's Germany, or in Mussolini's Italy, or in Stalin's Russia, or in Franco's Spain, and that there are no strikes in any country in which legislation makes them illegal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting close to that in this country? People's rights to work or not to work in pursuit of decent conditions are being taken away from them. The right hon. Gentleman had better understand that sooner or later the workers' dam will break—they will not stand for this for ever.

What the hon. Gentleman has said is, with respect, utter nonsense. It will not be accepted by the vast majority of people in this country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about employment, the fact is that industrial action destroys jobs and does not create jobs. Many people in this country resent the attempt of the Labour party to put unions above the law again.

Will my right hon. Friend not agree that workers' rights have actually been increased under this Government by making sure that they have a secret ballot before they are forced to strike? What does he think of the Labour party's proposals that strikes should start before the workers have been consulted?

The Labour party, and particularly the hon. Member for Oldham, West, have a great deal of explaining to do about those proposals, and I cannot understand the enthusiasm which appears to be coming from him and Labour Members for industrial action, which cannot be in the interests of anyone in this country.

If the dock employers continue to refuse to negotiate collective agreements with the Transport and General Workers Union to replace the dock labour scheme and the registered dockers come out on strike, will the Government give the port employers the same unconditional support they gave British Coal during the miners' strike?

There is absolutely no reason for the TGWU to call out the dockers on strike action over the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The port employers have offered talks at port level, which is a sensible step. The only people who will lose out as a result of industrial action in scheme ports are those in the scheme ports themselves, and I hope that will be remembered by all those working in them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms visited in 1988, were paying below the legal wages council minima; and how many were prosecuted.

Wages inspectorate statistics on compliance with wages orders are compiled on the basis of establishments rather than firms.

Given the fact that 380,000 establishments are covered by wages councils, were not a disgracefully low number visited by inspectors last year? Why have the Government cut the number of inspectors by over 100 per cent.? Even on this small sample, over 17 per cent. of those visited were paying below the statutory minimum, so why were only 0·03 per cent. prosecuted? Is this not another example of the fact that under this Government there is one law for the employers and another for lower-paid workers?

No. The hon. Gentleman's conclusion is as false as the statistics that he recited. The fact is that the wages inspectorate concentrates on those establishments which it believes to be underpaying. What it finds when it goes to many of these establishments is that there may be only two or three people being underpaid. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the number of prosecutions which take place, he should realise that the number of prosecutions has remained constant under this Government, as under the last.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even Left-wing economists are now saying that wages councils cause unemployment? Does he not agree that the major cause of poverty is unemployment?

That is absolutely right, as my hon. Friend says. The link is indeed well made out. The difficulty with Labour Members is that they cannot see that no job is worse than low pay.

On the question of very low wages, who does the hon. Gentleman agree with? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Social Security that wage poverty does not exist—in which case how are three quarters of a million workers caught in a poverty trap where they lose more than 70p of every extra £1 earned—or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that workers paid less than half national average earnings are indeed poor—in which case, why have the Government prosecuted only 56 out of more than 88,000 establishments found to be paying illegally low wages?

One of the hon. Gentleman's many troubles is that he seems to be prosecution-happy. The point about prosecution policy is that if on a visit it is found that there has not been a blatant disregard of the law but perhaps a mistake, obviously, prosecution may not be appropriate. That was the reason—and the hon. Gentleman would have heard it if he had been listening—why I was able to say to his hon. Friend that the rate of prosecution under this Government has remained the same as it was under the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made a valuable contribution when he said that some people have a vested interest in poverty-mongering. From what we have heard it would appear that that includes the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received about changes in dates for national bank holidays; and if he will make a statement.

A number of differing views have been expressed to my Department about public holidays, including the first Monday in May. The question of any changes raises several complex issues, which my right hon. Friend is considering.

My hon. Friend will have noted that there are no bank holidays whatever from the end of August until Christmas and that we have a plethora of them in the spring, which is disruptive for industry. Will he consider resiting or allocating one of those to the autumn? Perhaps we could do our duty by Nelson and make Trafalgar Day a national day.

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive point, but there are probably two difficulties. One of them is to try to find some consensus about how the bunching of bank holidays might be accommodated, and the other is to find a place in the calendar to which a bank holiday might be more suited. Many people, probably the overwhelming majority of people, would rather celebrate a British occasion, such as Trafalgar Day, than some inappropriate foreign import such as May Day.

Does the Minister not agree that the important issue is not which days are being celebrated but how many days' holiday workers are entitled to? Does he further agree that holidays for British workers compare unfavourably with those in other European countries, both in terms of bank holidays and annual holiday entitlement? Is it not time that we had a minimum statutory requirement of six weeks?

The issue is rather narrower than that. It is a question whether the present spread of bank holidays is appropriate or whether there is such a bunching that it would be better to dispense with the bunching. It is difficult to find a consensus about how the arrangements might be altered, and that is why my right hon. Friend is considering the matter.

May I suggest to the Minister a simple solution to the need for a national day? It is to change the title of 1 May to Union Day, because that was the glorious day upon which the Act of Union came into force.

Not having a clapometer with me I cannot detect whether those who are in favour of Trafalgar Day outnumber those who are in favour of Union Day. Hon. Members will have to make up their own minds.

Will the Minister consider making St. David's Day a national holiday for the people of Wales?

Any alteration in the bank holidays which would give me the opportunity to spend more time in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would be most welcome, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently self-employed in the south-east.

In December 1988 there were 1,080,000 self-employed people in the south-east, including London, an increase of 112,000 over the previous two years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a remarkable and welcome achievement? Does he also agree that self-employment constitutes one of the very best opportunities for women to establish businesses of their own, that they are taking advantage of that in large numbers, and that even Opposition Members might welcome self-employment as a means of expressing in practical terms equal opportunities for women?

Yes. The number of self-employed women has gone up by about 113 per cent. since 1979.

Could the Minister explain the basis of this estimated number of self-employed in the south-east? Could he also tell us how many self-employed businesses have gone into liquidation—have gone bust—as a result of the Government's high interest policies which are bearing down on the very small businesses that the Government are supposed to encourage?

The hon. Gentleman knows that interest rates are very important in the control of inflation. I cannot give him a specific figure, because it is difficult to sort out the reasons why individual companies do not succeed. But there is a high success rate among self-employed people and among small businesses generally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the labour force survey, European Economic Community and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development surveys show falls in United Kingdom unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

The latest labour force survey shows a fall in the number of people unemployed in the internationally agreed definitions of about half a million between the spring of 1987 and the spring of 1988. This confirms the sharp fall in unemployment recorded by the monthly claimant count. United Kingdom unemployment has fallen at a faster rate over the last two years than in any other major industrialised country.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the measurement of unemployment as shown by the ILO and OECD figures, as well as by the latest labour force survey, reveals the number of unemployed as being lower than the number of claimants registered with his Department? Does that not give the lie to the suggestion that the Government are fiddling the figures? Can he also inform the House of the number of long-term unemployed now compared with the number six years ago?

My hon. Friend is right on the first point, and we have entirely demolished the gloss that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has put on the definition. The number of long-term unemployed in January was 821,000, the lowest for more than six years.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May 1989.

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. This evening I hope to have an audience of her Majesty the Queen.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under her leadership Britain will continue to champion a Europe dedicated to enterprise, opportunity and freedom for all its citizens? Will she also reaffirm her resolve to fight any proposals from Europe designed to deprive this Parliament of any powers over taxation and the economy?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Our vision of Europe is a vision of sovereign states co-operating freely in those things that we can do better together than we can do ourselves. We shall certainly resist proposals which would deprive this House of its premier standing on taxation—[Interruption.]—and no longer enable us to take our own decisions on taxation.

Will the Prime Minister say whether Conservative candidates in the Euro elections should take their lead from her or from Henley?

They will take it from the manifesto, which will shortly be published. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will read it most assiduously, and he might even agree with a great deal of it.

Will the right hon. Lady, in compiling that manifesto, be consulting the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

The manifesto will be prepared as previously—on our stance in Europe. We are very good Europeans and we shall work within the Community. Any country—[Interruption]—which gives £2 billion this year to the Community—our net contribution—which stations the number of troops in NATO that we do and which has its history with Europe as we have, is likely to be a very good European and have a vision of a free enterprise Europe based on freedom under the rule of law.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May 1989.

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

In view of the disgraceful scenes of football-related violence last weekend, may I ask my right hon. Friend if she agrees that this problem will not go away and that firm action needs to be taken?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The scenes last Saturday, when there were about 220 arrests—after Hillsborough—were absolutely appalling and utterly disgraceful, and we were all horrified by them. I believe that indicates that more steps need to be taken. There is a Bill before the House, with which we said we would go ahead on condition that it was an enabling scheme and that therefore it would come before the House before being finalised. It has other measures too, including the licensing of grounds. I believe that we should go ahead with that measure, which would be a vehicle for any further measures that it was thought necessary to take, without just waiting and doing nothing before the coming football season.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the House of Lords spoke for the whole nation on the Water Bill last night? Will she accept the House of Lords decision or will she condemn the British people to drinking dirty water for longer?

I believe that the Government have spoken for the whole nation in greatly increasing the amount of investment spent on improved water—investment far greater than under any previous Government. We shall look at that amendment. The question is whether it can be done in time. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that the extra things that he is demanding will cost a good deal more money and will not complain when that price is exacted.

In view of the humiliating defeat suffered by the British Government and people last night in the EEC, when a directive concerning public health was foisted on us through a majority vote under the Single European Act, will my right hon. Friend undertake that this decision will be referred by the British Government to the European court or that the veto will be exercised?

No. We shall consider the matter very carefully but, as my hon. Friend knows, under the Single European Act we agreed that, for the purpose of implementing the Single European Act and only for that purpose, the majority rule should apply in certain cases. What is a matter sometimes for the court to decide is whether a particular issue comes under the majority rule or whether it remains under article 100. It is that, which is maybe an issue, that we shall consider very carefully.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

It is exactly one year since the Prime Minister lectured the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on how to be Christian. In the light of the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security, which is appalling, that poverty in this country has now been eliminated, will the Prime Minister undertake that on her next visit to Scotland she will dispense with her "Sermon on the Mound", stop turning the other cheek and address the problems of poverty which are still a reality for many hundreds of thousands of Scotsmen, women and children today?

Surveys show that people at all income levels, including those in the bottom one tenth of income levels, are far better off than they were 10 years ago. What the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues would prefer is that the bottom tenth should be worse off provided they pulled all other levels down with them. That is an appalling doctrine.

Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that when it comes to sovereign states working in unison there is no finer example than the Council of Europe? Indeed, only last week Finland joined, making a total of 23 countries. Does she agree that this is the genuine voice of Europe, the overwhelming voice of Europe; that it is the true parliamentary assembly of Europe and that the European Parliament needs to be told this time and time again?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Council of Europe does extremely valuable work and obviously goes a good deal wider than the European Community. We take a great interest in all its work, but we also belong to the European Economic Community. We are bound to it by treaty, the amended treaty, but we wish to see that in future it develops along the courses which we wish it to take and which we believe to be the right ones, and that it does not become too bureaucratic.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

Can the right hon. Lady tell us what role she sees deep-mined coal in Scotland playing in the energy provisions of the United Kingdom? Does she support the proposal that deep-mined coal production in Midlothian should end despite the fact that there are very rich reserves of coal that would last well into the next century?

The question will initially be one for British Coal. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not only the reserves of coal that matter but whether they can be mined competitively, so that people are not overcharged for the electricity that comes from coal. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the mine at Longannet will continue to be worked for Longannet power station. He is also well aware that there are other proposed closures because some pits have lost as much as £20 million recently, and we cannot allow losses of that dimension to continue. There is a major place in the United Kingdom for coal-fired power stations, and the major part of our electricity will continue to be generated by them for a long time to come.

The whole House will have heard the sad news of the deaths of nine Royal Navy personnel in the helicopter crash in Africa, which comes hard on the heels of the deaths of two Royal Navy pilots who crashed in my constituency of Portland. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to express the sympathy of the whole House to the relatives and friends of those victims? Will she also reflect that, in these times of peace, the people who have been peacekeeping with the Armilla patrol for the past 10 years should be recognised, perhaps by a campaign honour—which seems to have been rather slow in coming to people who have been doing a magnificent job over many years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House will wish to take advantage of his invitation to send its sympathy to the relatives of those lost in the crash to which he refers, of a helicopter that has been flying from HMS Brilliant, which had previously been on duty with the Armilla patrol. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. Other matters are being considered by the Ministry of Defence, but we would like to honour those who took part in the Armilla patrol and in its extremely important work in the international waterway of the Gulf.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that after nearly two years of negotiations by some local authorities in south Yorkshire and in Scunthorpe, an agreement was signed five months ago for a £308 million aid concession from Europe? Is she aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to break that agreement so that the aid will be widespread throughout the east of England? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the Secretary of State's action, which has deprived my constituency—which has a 20 per cent. male unemployment rate—of substantial aid, or does she disagree with him and accept that the money should be spent where the EEC said? If the Prime Minister does agree with her right hon. Friend, do we not risk losing credibility in respect of our use of EEC aid?

No. Those EEC aid agreements must also take into account the Government's view as to how the money can best be spent. Every single pound spent by the EEC in this country is paid for by the taxpayers of this country. Over and above everything that we pay for, this year we shall pay £2 billion net to the European Community, so it is obviously very important that the Government's views are also taken into account.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the interest shown by hospitals throughout the country in achieving self-governing status? Will she stress once again to the House and to the country that self-governing status does not mean that hospitals are either opting out of the Health Service or going private?

My hon. Friend is correct. No hospital will be privatised. Hospitals will be given the choice, if they wish, to be self-governing, which means that they will have control over their own budgets so that decisions will be taken much nearer to the patient. which will in many cases mean far better value for money.—[Interruption.] Opposition Members dislike choice except when they choose to say that they like it occasionally. Whether or not a hospital becomes self-governing is a matter of choice.

To ask the Prime Minister if she 'will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

On reflection, does the Prime Minister regret having used a three-line Whip and a guillotine to push the Single European Act through the House?

No, I do not. We wished to have many of the directives under majority voting because things which we wanted were being stopped by others using a single vote. For example, we have not yet got insurance freely in Germany as we wished. We strenuously contest some decisions concerning animal and health regulations, which we believe should come under unanimity and that is our understanding. We are not quite certain what will be the judgment not of the Council of Ministers but of the European Court, which makes judgments on whether a particular matter comes within majority or unanimity if it is not clear on the face of the wording.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Governments throughout the world are looking at ways to reform the provision of health care and that Poland and Hungary, to name but two Communist countries, are introducing methods of private insurance and charges?

Certainly, many countries are looking at the rapidly increasing cost of health care. We recall that in 1977 Alec Merrison said that provision for health care in this country could take the entire income of the country, so we are all looking to get the very best value for money, not only in Poland and Hungary, but in Germany, Italy and other countries in the European Community. Those who take out private insurance pay their full share of tax to the National Health Service and by not using it and paying further for their own treatment they are taking a very great burden off the Health Service and should be thanked for doing that.

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the soaring cost of the Government's publicity machine; and calls for an end to its deployment for party political purposes.

I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

There is widespread and growing concern about the scale, propriety and timing of much Government publicity and advertising. It is an issue that goes to the heart of the relationship between political parties, the people, public servants and the state. In 1985 the Government acknowledged that in their evidence to the Widdicombe inquiry when they said:

"The unregulated use by any public authority of highly developed media techniques, particularly for persuasive purposes with a strong political undertone, is perceived as a dangerous trend in a democratic society."

"Who benefits from the campaign? The ten authorities' tied customers will not get cleaner or cheaper water, merely bigger bills. The authorities themselves can hardly increase their sales or market share. Indeed, after the dry winter, some of them might be glad to be asked to supply less, not more, water."

I could not understand from what the hon. Gentleman said whether he welcomed the increase in expenditure on advertising by the Department of Social Services.

There is no Department of Social Services in national Government. There is a Department of Social Security, which has misspent money on pathetic, rather trendy advertising that did not work. It is now halving to spend more money. It would be better, of course, if we saved the money now spent on advertising and gave people benefits which were easy to take up and were not dependent on advertising to get them taken up in the first place.

"the Government's lavish publicity campaigns on such issues as job training and health education … little more than an expensive vote-catching exercise."

What does the hon. Gentleman know about it?