Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answer of 28 July, Official Report, column 1043, he will publish in the Official Report the figures on factory inspections contained in the letter.

Yes, Sir.

I congratulate the Minister on trying to hide the figures. Does he accept that the figures show that 20 per cent. of factories and other industrial premises have not been inspected for more than five years? Is that not a disgrace, especially when two people are killed every working day? Under the present Government, the Health and Safety Executive has been cut by about 20 per cent. Is it not high time that the Government gave safety in industry a higher priority, informed management of the existence of the Health and Safety Executive and made the executive really effective?

Far from being disgraceful, the hon. Gentleman has shown that he does not know the facts which lie behind his supplementary question. He makes the assumption that all premises should be inspected the same number of times. That seems to assume that the dangers inherent in a chemical engineering factory will be same as those in a dressmaking concern. There is a rating system which ensures that inspectors look for trouble to the greatest extent where they are most likely to find it. Far from trying to hide the figures, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not draw attention to the fact that a letter that I sent to him, containing the information which is to be placed in the Library, showed that the number of preventive inspections had risen by about 20 per cent. since 1985–86.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best inspectors of any factory are the employees, and that the inspectorate always responds to a complaint by employees at a work place so as to ensure that safety is paramount? Surely the responsibility should be on employees to alert inspectors.

My hon. Friend is right. The primary responsibility for ensuring proper health and safety in the work force lies with employers and employees. Just as we could not solve crime by putting a policeman on every corner, there is no evidence that we could eliminate accidents by putting an inspector in every work place.

Now that I have received a letter from the Secretary of State which it took him three months to write, in which he admits that he has failed to keep his promise to the House to increase the factory and agriculture inspectorates by 40 inspectors by 31 March, will the Minister take the opportunity on behalf of the Government to apologise to the House for failing to keep that promise? When will the Government increase the strength of the factory and agriculture inspectorates by the 40 inspectors promised by 31 March?

The only apology due to the House arising from the question would be from the hon. Gentleman for the distorted way in which he has presented the figures. The target was 590 factory inspectors in post by April 1990. That has already been achieved, which is hardly surprising as in the past two years the HSE has received all the money for which it bid from central Government. The only point at issue is why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have persisted in choosing not to understand the figures.

Does the Minister deny what he said?

Order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently participating in YTS in Greater London.

The latest available figures show that there were 21,500 young people participating in YTS in Greater London.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. What proportion of YTS completers in London go on to full-time employment? Does my hon. Friend agree that YTS provides valuable training for young people?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. YTS provides extremely valuable training. Some 90 per cent. of all YTS completers in London go on to full-time employment and no fewer than 98 per cent. of all trainees entering the Bexley youth training group in my hon. Friend's constituency have found full-time employment.

How many youngsters suffer from accidents during their training? Will the Minister confirm that the number of accidents among YTS trainees has risen in the past few years and that as many as seven are killed and 500 injured every year under that scheme?

It is true that the number of accidents among YTS employees has risen, but that is because the number of youngsters on YTS has risen significantly. It is clear that young people on YTS are at least as safe, if not more so, as young people in employment generally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the trend of pay increases for (a) chairs of major companies and (b) work forces in major manufacturing companies since 1980.

The Government do not produce information about pay increases for individual chairmen or work forces of companies. Average earnings of all employees in manufacturing increased by 120 per cent. between August 1980 and August 1989. No reliable information on directors' earnings is readily available. Pay is a matter for businesses to determine in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

In that case, does the Minister accept that it was unfortunate to publish an article in October's Department of Employment Gazette which appeared to criticise the justification for some of the large salary increases for individual company chairmen, in particular singling out Lord King of British Airways and FKI Babcock who receives more than £550,000 from his two part-time jobs with those companies? Is not that an entirely unwarranted attack on an honest worker doing his best in the marketplace?

I am sure that Lord King will take great comfort from what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government, including my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have constantly made it clear that we are against unjustified pay increases. If, in the circumstances, a pay rise can be justified, so be it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many in the British work force from top to bottom, are besotted with the desire to receive unearned pay increases? Would they not be better employed trying to close the productivity gap which still exists between Britain and some of our major competitors?

My hon. Friend has it exactly. It is remarkable that even after 10 years of a Conservative Government it is still possible for Opposition Members to indulge in a sterile class war every time high salaries are mentioned. If a pay rise can be justified in all the circumstances, that pay rise is a proper one.

But is it not true that many company directors have this year given themselves increases often running into three figures in percentage points? How can that be justified at a time when the Government insist that ambulance staff, who contribute so much to our society, should have forced upon them an increase below the level of inflation? Why should they take a cut in real wages while the top people are getting such large increases?

Any company making a decision about what its directors will be paid has to take into account a number of factors. It will have to consider whether a pay rise is necessary to attract staff of the correct calibre and whether the person will make a contribution which will justify his salary. The hon. Gentleman cannot get to grips with the fact that many of the lowly or lower paid employees, whose interests he claims to represent, are better served by having companies run efficiently, and that that costs money at the highest level.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the constituency of Basildon and for the same period in each of the last six years.

In September 1983 there were 6,532 unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Basildon compared with 2,439 in September this year. With permission, I will publish the detailed figures in the Official Report

Is my hon. Friend aware that the sign displaying the number of people without work in Basildon has been taken down, although the local Labour party claimed that it fell down as a result of rusty screws? Does he agree that the downward trend of unemployment in Basildon reflects the successes of local businesses, the availability of a willing work force and the underlying strength of the British economy?

I am pleased to congratulate employers and employees in Basildon on the considerable increase in economic activity that has led to many new jobs. If I may dare to make a recommendation to my hon. Friend, I suggest that he offers the council some new screws so that it can publicise the fact that unemployment in Basildon has fallen by more than 30 per cent. in the past year alone.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State recently advised young people in Basildon and other areas who are presently in receipt of income support or unemployment benefit to refuse offers of jobs if they did not contain a significant training element leading to a qualification? The Secretary of State seems to agree that that is accurate. Is the Minister further aware that under the present regulations if young people refuse jobs they will have their benefit suspended? Did the Secretary of State not think through his comments or was he announcing that the regulations would be changed to allow people to refuse jobs on that basis?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that in the 1990s we expect that youngsters will have the choice of moving into full-time education or jobs with training. That is the desire of the Government and of employers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of school-industry compacts.

Forty compacts are being supported by the Training Agency. To date, some 230 schools and more than 30,000 young people are participating in compact arrangements, actively supported by more than 1,000 employers and training providers. By any standards, the initiative has made a very impressive start.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Will he confirm that they apply to urban programme authorities, not to authorities in general, and that there is also merit in compact-like arrangements in other local education authorities, from which employers, schools and businesses may profit?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Compact arrangements, which were introduced only last year, have been targeted at inner-city areas. That is where the priority is, but I believe that such arrangements can be extended elsewhere.

I welcome compact agreements, but does the Minister agree that they come nowhere near meeting the increasing skills shortage? Is he aware that more and more industries are saying that the Government are not doing enough to provide support in tackling skills shortages? In particular, employment training does not offer the specialised and relevant training that we need in a modern society.

The question has nothing to do with employment training for the long-term unemployed. We are talking about young people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support compact arrangements, which have taken off dramatically and provide good training and, above all, opportunities for young people in inner-city areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have received development lending; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the progress of the establishement of training and enterprise councils.

Thirty-five prospective training and enterprise councils from all parts of England and Wales have now received development funding, and the first TECs will become operational early next year. When we launched TECs in March, we expected that it would take three to four years to complete the network. We are now far ahead of that schedule—the applications received so far already cover half the working population of England and Wales and the network will be in place by September 1990.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he give every consideration to an application, which I believe is currently before him, for a TEC to be set up in my constituency—or, at least, in the area that covers it? Will he ensure that the scheme places every possible emphasis on long-term retraining for the future and does not become merely a "make-work" scheme? I understand that there is a felicitous partnership between the local authority, the Department and leading employers in the area.

Yes, I think that there is a unity among employers, local authorities and all the other groups involved, and I hope that that unity can be maintained. TECs are there to help with training for both the unemployed and those in employment.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that senior industrialists are contributing time to make the concept of TECs a success? I note that although there are four TECs in Yorkshire, there are none in Humberside. Can my right hon. Friend give me some comfort by telling me that Humberside may have one in the future?

Yes, I believe that one is in preparation. We certainly hope that that will come about, and we look forward to receiving an application from Humberside.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the TECs, or any other such arrangements, are available o help a group of apprenticies in Bradford facing redundancy with a year or more of their apprenticeships to go? They are anxious to complete their training and find themselves in very difficult circumstances. Can the Secretary of State do anything to help those young people?

I shall look into that. Certainly, in principle, there is everything that a TEC can do in such circumstances. That is one of their advantages—they deal essentially with the local labour market. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to study the specific circumstances and come back to him.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the success of bodies such as the Dundee project in turning around the economy of our city in the 1980s has been based on the granting of representation to local authorities, trade unions, central Government and the business community. Why has the hon. Gentleman departed from that successful formula in the establishment of the new training bodies throughout the country?

The Scottish arrangements are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and separate legislation will be needed for that country. I have been describing the position in England and Wales. Overall, however, we want a partnership between all interests at local level.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the training and enterprise initiative. Will he ensure that all the other Government employment services such as jobcentres and training schemes are put fully at the disposal of 200 of my constituents employed at Quality Parts at Fylde who, sadly, have been made redundant and could well benefit from the many services available to enable them to become employed again?

I will certainly ask the employment service to examine the position, and we shall seek to do what we can to alleviate or, indeed, solve the problem.

Has the Secretary of State seen the CBI report, published this morning, which says that Britain's training is way behind that of the rest of Europe and holding back the progress of the economy? Will he review all the rotten training initiatives that the Government have launched and then give us a proper structure of training so that British people can develop proper skills and the economy can flourish?

It for exactly that kind of reason that the TEC initiative has been launched. I realise that the hon. Lady has been critical of a number of other proposals, but I hope that she will recognise that the TECs involve cross-party agreement and agreement by most people at literally local level. I hope that she will not undertake the kind of activities that she undertook in regard to employment training, which do no service to training or to the unemployed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the employers, who are in partnership in the training and enterprise councils, are investing about £15 billion in training? Does he agree that the Government's agreement to implement the social contract, the acceptance of minimum wages and no restriction on strikes would result in a loss of jobs and a cut in the budgets which those employers put into training, to the detriment of British industry and British jobs?

I very much agree with all that my hon. Friend has said, but I must point out that there is a later question on the Order Paper on that point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department has carried out regarding the impact of the lack of creche and similar facilities for children aged under five years on female unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

The Department has funded a number of research projects which have looked into child care and female unemployment. We are currently sponsoring research into the many issues that surround women's decisions to return to work after childbirth.

Does the Minister agree that this country has an appalling record and that of the 12 European Community countries we have the lowest level of provision apart from Portugal? Is he aware that a survey of 100 industrial companies carried out last month by The Daily Telegraph, showed that only six provided child care facilities? By 1992, when the Single European Act comes into force, we shall be unable to meet the target.

I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have the second highest level of female participation in the work force throughout the European Community and 85 per cent. of all children under five have some kind of pre-school provision such as creches, play schools or nursery schools. That is a record of which we can and should be proud.

Does my hon. Friend accept that I believe, as do many other hon. Members, that it was entirely wise for the Department to wait and see what private sector initiatives would be called into being to provide creche and other facilities for women wishing to enter the employment market? Does he also accept that in view of the wide range of perks and tax-deductible expenses which operate for a large number of other purposes the Department should look closely at the tax position of facilities which make it possible for women to return to the labour market?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but he should not underestimate the considerable amount of child care provision of one kind or another that is already available. I will refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

When will the Minister accept that we have the worst child care provision for under-fives in the European Community? Why do the Government persist in pretending that they wish women to return to the paid labour market when the biggest barrier to their return is the lack of provision for the under-fives? When will the Minister stop thinking about it and start providing those facilities?

The hon. Lady obviously was not listening. We have the second highest level of female participation in the work force in the European Community. Almost one in three women with children under five have jobs because they want to have jobs. Other women decide that they do not want to work when they have children under five. They should be free to make that choice.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate companies which already provide creche facilities and those which are embarking on the provision of even further creche facilities to welcome back women who wish to return to work, especially the big banks which are very active in this area?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have been a number of important initiatives. The Civil Service is also seeking to lead the way with a number of imaginative schemes. It is important that employers should provide facilities for child care for their women employees.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he plans to take to strengthen the work of the wages councils in relation to the enforcement of wage levels.

The level of compliance with wages orders is very high and no new initiatives are contemplated.

Does the Minister accept that increasing numbers of people are now unprotected and working for a pittance? Does he not accept that the work of wages councils is supported by responsible employers and responsible employers' organisations? Will he not extend the work of wages councils to deal with irresponsible employers, including those who seem to have the ear of the Government?

No. Obviously that is one of the views that has been put to the Government in the review of the wages councils. There is also a substantial body of evidence that the effect of organisations such as the wages councils is to destroy jobs. At the end of the day, the hon. Gentleman has to consider whether low pay is better than no job.

What effect would the social charter, aptly named in one of today's newspapers as the strikers' charter, have on the bureaucratic interventions which my hon. Friend has done so much to do away with?

Its effect would certainly not be beneficial.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures he has introduced to encourage mobility of labour.

My Department is active in encouraging mobility of labour. We are working at improving the supply of information about job vacancies in other areas, for instance with the initiative announced the week before last to publish vacancies on ITV's teletext service. In addition, the travel-to-interview scheme provides assistance to unemployed people who apply for jobs outside their home area.

What initiatives is my hon. Friend's Department taking to seek to synchronise employment opportunity with housing availability? Is he aware that job applicants from other parts of the country for vacancies in Gloucester are unable to fill those vacancies because of the lack of housing at a price that they can afford?

My hon. Friend draws attention to a very real concern. I certainly would not undervalue the travel-to-interview scheme. However, my hon. Friend is right that housing plays a very important part in the disincentive to mobility. My hon. Friend may be aware of the national mobility scheme and the tenants exchange scheme which are operated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Furthermore, the business expansion scheme introduced in the last Budget was used as a vehicle to encourage people to provide more rented accommodation. There are a number of initiatives and my hon. Friend was entirely right to draw attention to the fact that there is no single solution.

I notice that the Minister accepts no responsibility for encouraging the 45,000 to 50,000 citizens of the Irish Republic who move to Great Britain and elsewhere annually to come over here. Can he tell us what analysis is being carried out of such large numbers of citizens of the Irish Republic moving to the mainland, and their impact, if any, on the unemployment registers?

The mobility to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention has been going on for many years. The question concerns the initiatives being taken by the Government to encourage mobility, and that is what we have addressed.

Has not the Government's extremely successful right-to-buy policy been very helpful in assisting mobility of labour? Was not that policy specifically resisted, root and branch, by the Opposition who were converted only very late in the day?

Of course my hon. Friend is right, but obviously any sensible initiative on these matters will be opposed by the Opposition. I do not think that my hon. Friend should be too surprised about that.

Is not the Minister presented with a credibility gap when he tries to claim that the Government are increasing mobility of labour when they cancelled the grant aid system some three years ago so that poor families who want to get off the dole and get a job outside their areas have to depend on money from charity, as a constituent of mine did to cover the costs of removal? When will the Government do something about that?

As I have already said to the House, the travel-to-interview scheme provides assistance for those people who need help with interview expenses, including overnight accommodation if that is what they need to take up a particular job possibility. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case where he feels that the scheme is not working, obviously he can contact me and I shall be more than happy to look into it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the progress of the European social charter; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the headlines in today's newspapers which say that Britain is isolated over the social charter? Does he agree that that is hardly surprising given that we are so far ahead of our European partners— [Interruption.]—in creating new jobs and reducing unemployment? Should not our European partners be following our lead in not increasing but reducing burdens on employers who want to expand and create new jobs?

My hon. Friend is correct. At the meeting of the Social Affairs Council yesterday, there was no doubt that a range of countries had reservations about the social charter. There is no question but that unemployment has fallen faster in Britain than in any other European country. It currently stands below the European average, and below that in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Italy. We believe that the social dimension should be about jobs and that the social charter simply does not live up to that. [Interruption.]

Order. There is a background of chatter this afternoon. It is very difficult to hear questions.

Is there not a strange inconsistency in the position of Cabinet Ministers, who parade their Euro-virility and credentials around the country while they stand aside and watch the Secretary of State sabotage and undermine the perfectly excellent principles behind the social charter? Is it not about time that some of them developed a little backbone and vision?

For good reason, the social charter is opposed by the entire Government on the ground that it simply does not live up to the aspirations that it puts forward. The Government are certainly in favour of a social dimension, by which we mean new jobs and the reduction of unemployment. The social charter will not achieve either of those objectives.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the end of the second world war we have had enough of this nonsense about signing pieces of paper and charters, most of which came from the last Labour Government but produced little? They resulted in inflation, unemployment and ghastly problems. We do not want such problems from Europe. More people are in work now than under the regime of the last Labour Government.

The charter covers a range of subjects, such as minimum wages, holiday periods and the unqualified right to strike, all of which will have detrimental effects on employment in Britain. That has not been denied by the European Commissioner in Brussels. The only question is how many jobs it will cost, not whether it will cost jobs.

Although the social charter may not be entirely perfect, why does not the Secretary of State try to build on its many good aspects and make constructive criticism rather than being negative? He recently made points about provision for young people, so will he explain what is wrong with the prohibition of full-time work for people under 15, the special health and safety regulations for people in work under the age of 18 and the establishing of quotas for employing people with handicaps?

There are a range of measures, of which health and safety is one, with which we agree. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we have not played a constructive role in the debate. We have played a constructive role, and talks will continue. I should not wish to deceive the House because I believe that there are a number of fundamental defects in the charter, which I hope can be solved.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most matters are better left to market forces rather than any social or Socialist charter?

The regulations set out in the charter will not achieve what all hon. Members want. The House deceives itself if it believes that the social charter will be good for employment or will reduce unemployment in Britain. [Interruption.]

Order. I again appeal to the House to listen to employment questions, which are important, and are of some concern to other hon. Members.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still think, like the Prime Minister, that the Euro social charter is the product of Marxism and the class struggle? If so, why has it now been agreed by every other Right-wing Government in Europe? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under this Government British workers now have the worst industrial conditions in Europe, with no minimum wage, no protection against arbitrary dismissal and no right to participate in decisions at the workplace? After Madrid and Kuala Lumpur, is this not yet another example of the Government and the Prime Minister being completely isolated and manifestly out of touch with public opinion here and abroad?

I must point out that only a couple of years ago the hon. Gentleman was running for office by supporting a proposal for Britain to come out of the Common Market altogether. [Interruption.] Yes, he was. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, I shall give him the reference. In the Labour Herald of 24 September 1982, the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman change his principles every five years? The fact —[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister has a right to reply, but I hope that he will be brief.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the social charter will not create jobs. It will destroy jobs and create unemployment. The hon. Gentleman should be opposed to the charter as it stands.

Although I accept that there is much in the social charter as it stands that is questionable, are there not other elements in it that are rather good, for instance, the right not to join a trade union?

Indeed. There is a basis of proposals which we believe could be used for a social charter. Our objection is not to a social charter in all circumstances but to this kind of social charter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will review current employment laws as they relate to the threatened dismissal of staff without compensation in the light of the dispute at Manifold Industries, Leyton; and if he will make a statement.

There is no obligation on any party in an industrial dispute to inform the Government about the dipute, or action which may be taken in connection with it. On the basis of such information as is available about this particular dispute, however, there appears to be no reason to change any aspect of current industrial relations law.

Does the Minister agree that the management of Manifold Industries has treated its workers shabbily? After its initial intimidatory action, the management has avoided all negotiations, including those via the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The management is using Tory industrial relations law to avoid paying proper compensation, while it clears the decks to make a fortune in a future, speculative sell-out. Is not sacking workers without compensation an appalling use of Tory industrial relations law, which should be changed?

It is not up to me to pass judgment on any of the matters which the hon. Gentleman raises. If his allegations are true, the workers have remedies open to them for unfair dismissal, when they may go before an industrial tribunal, or for breach of contract, when they may go before a civil court.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to increase the training of workers in the private sector.

Training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland will ensure that private sector employers lead Britain's training effort into the 1990s. They will increase employer commitment to training and will use private and public resources. In particular, they will support employers through business growth training.

That answer is astounding. Given that private sector employers are spending less than £4 billion a year directly on training, is it wise for the Government to hand over the control and direction of training to the very people who have shown no interest in training?

The hon. Gentleman is taking a blinkered and inaccurate view. Employers are spending £18 billion on training, not the amount that the hon. Gentleman quoted. The move towards TECs in England and Wales and LECs in Scotland has been widely supported by all sectors of the community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate for the numbers employed in the Yorkshire tourism industry and the value generated for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

The information is not available in the form requested, but it is estimated that in June 1989 the number of employees in employment in the hotel and catering industry in Yorkshire and Humberside was 96,000. It is estimated that overseas and domestic visitors staying in the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board region for one night or more spent a total of £654 million in 1988.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is Britain's fastest growth industry and that it is not enhanced by Socialist smears about it being a Mickey Mouse industry? Will he hold urgent discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the possibility of having more training programmes to enable more youngsters to enter this great industry?

My hon. Friend is entirely right in what he says. A sector which can produce £19 billion and 38,000 jobs a year does not justify the description given to it by the Labour party.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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.

While continuing to implement the policies which have been approved by the electorate on three occasions, will my right hon. Friend confirm that successful Governments must always be responding and listening to the real aspirations of the people?

Yes. That is why under the 10-year policies of Conservative Governments we have created more wealth than ever before, have spread it more widely than ever before, have a higher standard of living than ever before, have higher standards of social services than ever before and have a higher reputation abroad than ever before. Yes, we have indeed been listening. I believe that those are the real aspirations of the British people.

Will the Prime Minister now explain why she did not do the one thing that would have kept her Chancellor—sack her adviser?

As I said last week, advisers are there to advise and must advise honestly and freely. Ministers are there to decide. That is the way this Government do things.

The Prime Minister is being less than frank with the House and the country—[Interruption.] Does she recall that she said that she did everything possible to dissuade the Chancellor? Is not the real truth that she deliberately refused to do the one thing that would have kept him in office, which was to sack the man who, with her concurrence, was constantly undermining the Chancellor and his policy position on managing the currency?

The Chancellor's position is unassailable—[Interruption.]

Order.

In this party, Ministers decide and advisers only advise.

If what the Prime Minister has said is really true, may I ask her to explain why the former Chancellor had to write:

"Recent events have confirmed that this essential requirement cannot be satisfied so long as Alan Walters remains your personal adviser."

Nonsense. The position is precisely as I have set it out many times. Advisers are free to advise honestly. Ministers decide —[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will remember that neither Mr. Kaldor nor Mr. Balogh were exactly shrinking violets.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to confirm that although high interest rates are a temporary agony, to have savings destroyed and the financial working capital of every small company destroyed by inflation is a permanent and not a temporary destruction of their ability to live on trade reasonably?

Yes. My hon. Friend has put it perfectly. It was a destruction of savings and investment under the Labour Government that lost them the complete confidence of this country. Under us, savings have kept their value. That is why we put the diminution of inflation as our top priority and we shall continue to do so.

Does the Prime Minister realise that her lonely hostility to Europe has cost her four Cabinet Ministers and will cost Britain lost opportunities, lost wealth and lost prosperity in the future? How much more are we all going to have to pay for the triumph of a personal obsession over the national interest?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read the Bruges speech properly, when he will see that half the history of this country has been bound up with Europe. It is not hostility to Europe. We believe in Europe, but a Europe based on a free economy—a deregulated Europe with freedom under a rule of law, not a regulated bureaucracy dictating to this House from Brussels.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the underlying confidence of the money markets in her Government's economic policy? Has she had time to contrast that with the best efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to talk sterling down?

Yes. The money markets have remained stable in spite of the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to talk the pound down. He did not succeed. Confidence in this Government was sufficient to hold the markets.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

Following the disclosure in the leaked documents about the devastating effects of the privatisation of the electricity industry on the mining industry, will the right hon. Lady reconsider her attitude and not use the payroll vote to force the Bill through?

The contracts between the electricity industry and the coal industry are still under negotiation. The hon. Gentleman is aware that in the past 10 years, we have spent about £2 million every working day on investment in the coal mines. That should enable many of them to be highly competitive in the coal that they produce and to supply highly competitive coal to the electricity industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to pay more for electricity than necessary and will be keen for coal to be competitive.

Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), does my right hon. Friend agree that if Britain were prematurely to join the exchange rate mechanism at a time when German interest rates are 7 per cent. below our own, British borrowers might avoid the domestic constraints and borrow with impunity from Germany, thus increasing the money supply and frustrating the fight against inflation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The conditions under which we shall join the exchange rate mechanism—we already belong to the European monetary system, of course—were laid down and agreed at Madrid. They are specified in stage I of the Delors report—[Interruption.] Of course the Opposition do not want the truth. It gets in their way. [Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to reply.

The conditions are specified in stage I of the Delors report which provides for completion of the internal market, abolition of all foreign exchange controls, full implementation of a free market in financial services and the strengthening of the Community's competition policy. In those circumstances and provided that inflation in Britain has been brought down significantly, as we intend, the conditions would clearly exist for sterling to join the exchange rate mechanism. That is precisely what was laid down at Madrid and agreed by everyone.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

Despite the traumatic events of last week and the removal of her most formidable opponent from the Cabinet, the Prime Minister has declared business as usual. Can we take it therefore that she will not be recommending to her Cabinet the advice of Mayor Ed Koch of New York who said, "If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, support me, but if you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see your psychiatrist"?

We do things rather differently this side of the Atlantic.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

Can my right hon. Friend cast her mind back to 1979 when after five years of Socialism the Chrysler car business was sold to Peugeot-Talbot for 66p after 700 strikes in 1978? Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the past eight or nine years Peugeot is now making a profit of £100 million a year and producing more cars than ever? Does that not say more for Conservative Governments and nothing at all for Socialism?

Yes. As I said in reply to the first question this afternoon, under this Government wealth has been created and spread ever more widely. Under the last Labour Government, the Labour party took us to the IMF—bankrupt.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Hailsham who said this weekend, speaking with all the authority of a former Lord Chancellor who had served for many years in the Prime Minister's Cabinet, that for the Prime Minister to use her press officers to undermine her colleagues was not only disloyal, but dishonourable? Will she now stop that?

This was a comment from my noble Friend. I was surprised at it and I was very surprised that he made it. It is totally untrue and in any case, I would never take it from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), whose only adviser was the IMF.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a cruel deception to suggest that there is some painless way to bring down inflation and that if credit controls were introduced today, they would prove to be quite ineffective due to the international nature of the banking and financial markets?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The point was made effectively in the last debate on economic affairs when my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) dealt very well with the issue of credit controls. They will not work in the modern world with a free and open banking system. In an earlier debate, a former Treasury Minister in a Labour Government said:

"The Labour Party idea that you can have credit controls is rubbish. There is no way you can control credit except by controlling the price of credit, and the price of credit is Bank Rate."

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that in a tragic car accident last week in Coventry, the firefighters cut the cars apart, the police directed the traffic and an ambulance worker was upside down for two hours in that car infusing blood to the victim? How then this morning can Duncan Nichol say that the ambulance workers do not deserve parity with the other services? When will the Prime Minister stop chasing ambulances down to places like Clapham and King's Cross and praising ambulance workers and then treating them like dirt as she does now?

We all praise ambulance workers for their work and do not use them cheaply as the hon. Gentleman has done. Their pay claim, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is being negotiated and I most earnestly hope that they will keep emergency cover until the negotiations are complete.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the valuable contribution that is made to environmental protection by recycling—[Interruption.] Will she ensure that, under the forthcoming environmental protection Bill the work of the recycler is not interrupted by misleading definitions of waste?

Yes. Recycling, in all its forms, makes a great contribution to the economy, and we at No. 10 Downing street have introduced recycled paper.