Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement about job losses in the footwear and textile industries.

The unprecedented job growth achieved under this Government is testimony to the success of their policies, which have allowed industry and workers to adapt to changing circumstances and seize new opportunities. It would be counterproductive to try to bolster uncompetitive sectors.

Nothing that the Minister has said will give comfort to those who work in the footwear and textile industries. Is he aware that since 1979, 197,000 jobs have been lost in those two industries—2·5 jobs for every hour that the Government have existed? Will he, please, as a matter of urgency, in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry, set up a task force to look at the specific problems of the footwear and textile industries in order to save them from devastation? If he continues to fiddle, by the end of the decade there simply will not be a British footwear and textile industry left.

Of course, we are conscious of the problems in those industries, but it is worth stressing that both, in their different ways and in certain sectors, are successful. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should try to give the impression that we can magic away any problems with a wand, or even with a task force. Apart from anything else, he must realise that about 38 per cent. of imported footwear comes from the EC, and he and his party, with their belief in all that is good in the EC, must realise that no measures that even they would want to take could possibly do anything about that. I hope that the hon.

May I say that we in Northampton are proud that we produce the best footwear in the world and have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the country? Is not that something to do with the fact that we do not whinge, we are proud of ourselves and we get on with the job?

Yes, that well illustrates the difference in attitude between the Government and the Opposition. My hon. Friend is proud of his constituency and of the companies in it, whereas Opposition Members can only decry what happens in their constituencies and constantly talk it down.

Will the Minister continue to bear in mind the importance of the textile industry in Northern Ireland, where there has been rapid growth and where many new jobs have been created? Will he bear that in mind especially when negotiations on the importation of textiles are taking place?

I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the achievements in his part of the world. He is entitled to be proud and to bring to the attention of the House the fact that people in Northern Ireland are working very hard to built up those key sectors, and to demonstrate their capacity to be competitive and productive. We can all share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure and pride in that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received representations seeking the reintroduction of the national dock labour scheme.

I have received no such representations.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said that the scheme provided what Labour wanted all industries to have, and the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who said that to abolish the scheme was a wilful act of sabotage against the country's economic interest? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what has happened to productivity and to industrial relations in the docks since the dock labour scheme was abolished?

Productivity has increased. We have lost only two days since the collapse of the strike against abolition, compared with an average of three disputes a week when the scheme was in operation. The national dock labour scheme provides an object lesson in what life would be like if we were ever to have another Labour Government.

Whatever the merits of the national dock labour scheme, it provided our maritime communities with highly skilled workers. It is essential that the training facilities for those workers are maintained. In terms of industrial relations and productivity, the few Greenock dock workers who are still at work are among the best. They may take a few minutes off their work tomorrow to welcome the QE2 as she berths at the container terminal in Greenock.

I am delighted that the abolition of the scheme has given new opportunities to port workers at Greenock, as elsewhere. However, the hon. Gentleman is entirely incorrect if he suggests that there has been any deterioration in training since the abolition of the scheme. All surveys show that training has improved, that more of it is available and that it has been of a better quality since the scheme was abolished.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it comes as no surprise to the people of Medway that he has received no representations about the scheme, as both the Medway ports authority and the new container port on the Isle of Grain could be there, thriving and increasing the number of people in employment, only once the scheme had been removed?

My hon. Friend is right. Only a week or so ago, I opened a new facility at Sheerness for fruit storage, which cost £3·5 million. It was conceived, designed and executed after the abolition of the scheme and it certainly would not have been there if the scheme had still been in existence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any new proposals to increase job opportunities in rural and semi-rural areas.

Rural areas have shared in the increased job opportunities that have become available on an unprecedented scale in recent years. Training and enterprise councils are introducing new initiatives to reinforce that trend.

Let us dismiss the nonsense with which the Secretary of State started his comments. Does he accept that in rural areas there is a lack of choice of jobs and that there are many low-paid jobs? Will he do something to increase the opportunity for choice of jobs and for higher pay in rural and semi-rural areas?

But choice and job opportunities are increasing constantly in rural areas. They are sharing in the increased job opportunities that are becoming available. We have 3·5 million more jobs than we had in 1983 and rural areas have fully shared in that prosperity.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when he came to my constituency on Friday, he saw a welcome increase in excellent and well-paid jobs that require high qualifications in several parts of my constituency? Does he further agree that the increase by one quarter in jobs in the south-west—which is, in essence, rural—since 1983 is laudable and that we have a magnificent increase in jobs in the tourism industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was delighted to join her on Friday in her constituency, where we saw some magnificent examples of the dynamic enterprise which has flourished under this Government and which is providing job opportunities in rural areas. My hon. Friend, unlike the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), is living in the real world.

Will the Secretary of State undertake to look carefully at the way in which the new regime under which the training centres are operating is discriminating against potential trainees from rural areas? Is he aware that the amount of money that the Government give to the training centres per head must embrace an element for expenses? It is obviously more expensive to travel the 50 miles from my constituency to Edinburgh than it is to go round the corner. Will he make sure that potential trainees from rural areas are not discriminated against in that way?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one reason behind the setting up of the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland is to enable training to be provided that more closely fits the needs of local areas, including rural areas. They will be able to take the needs of their areas into account in a way that will be far more responsive than has previously been the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the unemployment figures in the towns of Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton in 1979 and the present day: and if he will make a statement on the future employment prospects in this area.

The figures are 1,441 and 1,656, although they are not comparable, the travel-to-work area having been redefined and changes having been made in the coverage of the count. With unemployment at only 4·5 per cent. for the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe area, prospects for future employment are excellent, bearing in mind the fact that there are over 500 vacancies locally.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the figures of 4·5 per cent. unemployment in the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe area and a mere 2·5 per cent. in South Molton show how wise we were to take away grant that was based on development areas and to substitute good roads and infrastructure? Can he promise me that when we get our downstream bridge, unemployment may virtually disappear in north Devon?

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the success in job creation in his constituency in the past few years. He is tempting me on to the territory of another Department. I shall resist that temptation, but I undertake to raise the point that my hon. Friend raises with the Department of Transport to see what can be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the improvements made by switching from YTS to youth training.

New youth training builds and improves on the achievements of YTS. It offers the promise of a level 2 qualification or more for every trainee who can achieve it. It offers flexible design and duration of training and wider eligibility. It will provide improved help for those with special training needs and those seeking employment after training.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while a disappointing number of youngsters over 16 are staying on for further education, it is vital for the career development of young people and for the needs of the economy that we offer each and every young person who wants it, a tailor-made training, which truly assesses their individual needs, which, we hope, matches the needs of industry, particularly in relation to skill shortages, and which, most of all, guarantees them a good qualification that will be welcomed in the workplace and be highly regarded?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The combination of new youth training and the training and enterprise councils offers us the best possible prospect of achieving the objectives that she identified.

Will the Secretary of State please try to do better this year in protecting the budget of his Department than he did in last year's autumn expenditure round, when several hundred million pounds were lopped off the expenditure on employment training and youth training? In particular, will he note that the London borough of Newham feels cheated as do 20 other local authorities, because they wanted to co-operate with the Government on the technical and vocational education initiative but now find that the cash for it has been substantially cut? Does he appreciate that investing in the technical and vocational education of our young people is the best use that can be made of public money?

The hon. Gentleman, who follows those matters closely as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, will know that in the past four years funding for training has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms at a time when unemployment has halved. That is the context in which this year's settlement must be seen.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that two members of the England World cup football squad first acquired their footballing skills under YTS? Will he further confirm that the same opportunities for young people to develop their world-class football skills will be available under youth training?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. David Platt and Paul Gascoigne, who combined to score the goal that put England in the quarter final of the World cup, were both YTS trainees. I am confident that youth training will enable the England World cup team to do even better in 1994 than in 1990.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that even after the recent Cabinet discussions, and despite the chaos caused by the cuts in the youth training budget for this year, he still intends to cut next year's budget by over £120 million? What went wrong? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman lose or did he simply not fight?

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there is no chaos. As I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, and as he too knows perfectly well, spending on training has increased in real terms by 60 per cent. in the past four years at a time when unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's commitment to training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits were issued to Hong Kong nationals in the latest available year.

The number of work permits issued to Hong Kong nationals during the 12-month period ending on 30 June 1990 was 868.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, and should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his latest appointment. Will my hon. Friend offer some reassurance to those who are concerned about the total number of permits to be issued under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, that the issue of work permits to people coming to this country and applying for permits once here will not be used as a means of circumventing the provisions of that Bill?

I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The strict conditions of the main work permit scheme will not be relaxed for Hong Kong citizens. Under the main scheme, work permits will continue to be issued only to those Hong Kong nationals who are recruited by employers for employment in high-level jobs that employers are unable to fill from resident labour.

Will the Minister confirm that, come the single market, 300 million EEC nationals could—I emphasise the word "could"—seek employment in this country without the need to obtain a work permit? Against that background, does he agree that the number of work permits issued to Hong Kong nationals pales into insignificance?

Of course, European Community nationals will be able to seek jobs in this country and British nationals will be able to seek jobs in European Community countries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a few years ago a lot of illegal work permits were issued from his Department? Has he been in the Department long enough to know for certain whether that practice has ceased?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. When I have got my feet under the desk—when I have even seen the desk—I shall look into that point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Her Majesty's Government will ratify International Labour Organisation convention 111 on discrimination, employment and occupations.

Convention 111 was adopted by the ILO in 1958. Every United Kingdom Government since then have declined to ratify the convention, and the present Government have no plans to do so.

Are the Government proud that standards in this country are so far below those of other countries? Is the reluctance to ratify the convention possibly connected with the findings of the committee of experts that the Government are in breach of the ILO conventions that they have ratified?

Certainly not. Convention 111 has nothing to do with standards. Indeed, the Act of Parliament that is expressly inconsistent with convention 111 is the Race Relations Act 1976, which was passed when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Solicitor-General.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing concern about the difficulty in obtaining employment that is faced by ex-offenders? Will he undertake to look at that matter with a view to improving the regime under which they seek jobs?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter, which gives rise to concern. I entirely accept his concern about this problem, which, with the training and enterprise councils, we are taking forward positively and realistically.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his productivity today, which is an enhancement on previous Question Times? Do the Government have any difficulty with the parts of the ILO conventions on employment that allow for greater disclosure? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the concept of disclosure would mean that the report by the accident prevention unit of the Health and Safety Executive into the channel tunnel, where so many people have died and where there is clearly a real problem with management, should be published and come into the public domain, to ensure that we could have a sensible and rational debate about the quality of safety on that project?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the reports to which he refers are compiled by the HSE and rely on the full co-operation of employers. If that co-operation is to be continuing and available in future, it is important that confidentiality should apply. That is why it is unlikely that that particular report will be published, but the hon. Gentleman will know the recent action taken by the HSE in relation to the channel tunnel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in the numbers of people self-employed during 1989.

Between December 1988 and December 1989, the number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom rose by nearly 200,000 to reach 3·3 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his translation. Can he confirm that that was the 10th successive year of increase in self-employment and that the figures are now some three quarters higher than when the Government took office? Will he take it from me, from personal experience, that it is a satisfactory way of employing oneself and serving the customers?

Indeed. My hon. Friend has made the point better than I could. We know that the main hope for future wealth creation and growth in employment is precisely the growth of the self-employed sector. The Government have demonstrated that we welcome and encourage self-employment. Our track record is excellent and we intend to maintain it.

I do not suppose that the Minister has had time yet, but if he looks at the figures for the incomes of self-employed people, he will find that large numbers of them are on very low incomes. Given the stress that his Government place on self-employment, will he consider securing better standards of protection against unemployment, sickness and low income levels for the self-employed, most of whom are extremely low-paid workers?

The answer must be no, because the great strength of the self-employed sector is precisely that most self-employed people do not want intervention, interference, or the pseudo-protection that the hon. Lady suggests. Self-employed people are vigorous, self-maintained people; they want to get on with wealth creation and job creation unencumbered by the measures for which the hon. Lady asks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of self-employed people would be much higher had the Inland Revenue not engaged in a campaign classifying entire groups of people from the self-employed to the employed?

On my first day in the job, I welcome the advice that my hon. Friend has given. He has given me a broad hint as to the direction that I might take better to discharge my responsibilities and I am most grateful to him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is taking any steps to introduce anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people.

The consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published on 29 June, sets out various options for encouraging the employment of disabled people. I shall be considering what action to take in the light of the comments that we receive.

Is the Secretary of State aware that good intentions and guidance may influence good employers, but will not affect bad employers who discriminate against disabled people? That is why the United States Government are enacting legislation outlawing unjustifiable discrimination. As many disabled workers in Britain suffer discrimination, why cannot we have the same legislation?

We see considerable difficulties in the way of following the path that the United States Government have chosen, but that is one of the matters on which we have consulted in the document, and I certainly should not want to prejudge the result of that consultation in responding to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend expand the numbers of sheltered placement schemes? Is not the success of the Government's voluntary schemes demonstrated by the fact that nearly 1 million disabled people are in jobs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sheltered placement schemes represent one of our great successes. There have been huge increases in the numbers on those schemes in the past few years and we look forward to an expansion of the schemes as resources allow.

Do not the disturbing figures for unemployment and low pay from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys point to widespread discrimination? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the major disability organisations accept that disability can be relevant to job performance? They are asking not for deaf piano tuners or blind bus drivers, but for the outlawing of unjustifiable discrimination. Is he further aware of the findings of the Spastics Society that job applicants are 1·5 times less likely even to be interviewed if they are disabled? Will he consider the case for legislation? Does he agree that there should be an early parliamentary debate on the consultative document?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and am aware of the research conducted by the Spastics Society. It has welcomed our consultative document, which canvasses a wide range of options. We shall consider the responses to that document with great care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact upon those in low-paid employment of the European Commission's draft directives on part-time and temporary work.

The draft directives would require an extra 1·75 million low-paid employees to pay national insurance contributions. I shall shortly be issuing a consultative document asking for comments on the proposals. A copy of the document will be placed in the Library.

In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, is not it clearly the Government's duty to do everything possible to ensure that the draft directive in its present form does not become European law?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that Opposition Members, who are so quick to leap to the defence of the low paid, will join us in ensuring that they will not be docked a significant proportion of their income as a consequence of that directive.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that while it is the European Commission's policy to try to increase the wages of the low paid, it is the Tory Government's policy—especially through the privatisation programme—to reduce those wages?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The result of this and other draft directives emanating from the Commission would be to destroy jobs. We have an unrivalled record of job creation during the past few years, and we do not intend to have it put at risk by directives from the Commission or any other source.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many businesses such as those in the retail sector which rely heavily on part-time labour, especially women, are already giving pro-rata benefits, including pensions? Does he agree that that is a most welcome development which should be encouraged as it will mean that, in future, such staff will not be dependent on the public purse for pensions and other benefits when they retire?

As usual, there is a great deal of substance in my hon. Friend's point. These matters are best left to the workers and the employers. It is not appropriate for burdens to be imposed on employers that they may not be able to meet and which will lead to a fall in the number of jobs available.

So that the Secretary of State does not mislead the House, can he tell us the Government's policy towards the proposal that part-time workers should be given the same rights of maternity leave, so that more women can return to work as part-time employees?

That directive has not yet been published. We shall consider its text as and when it becomes available, and regard it on its merits, as we regard all the other directives that emanate from the Commission.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the rural parts of Scotland, where part-time and temporary work are an essential part of the local economy, there could be a devastating effect if anything was done to put such jobs in jeopardy?

My hon. Friend is right, which is why we have approached these matters with such care and caution—apparently in contrast to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is prepared to give a warm welcome to directives that have not yet been published, and to sign a blank cheque to the Commission without knowing what costs are involved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for employment services for disabled people.

The consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" sets out our intentions for the development of services in the 1990s. These take forward themes established in the 1980s of integration into the work force and the active commitment of employers to good practices in creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The document has been widely distributed and the period for consultation lasts to 31 December.

Does the Minister accept that disabled people need legal protection at work? Has the Department studied practice in France and Germany, which operate a quota and levy system? If not, will he undertake to study it before the conclusion of the current consultations?

Much work lies behind the consultative document to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. We shall consider all the submissions and comments made, and they will be taken into account before decisions are taken.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new job. Will he discuss these new services with the architects responsible for designing many of our industrial buildings to ensure that they are far more user-friendly for disabled people, to the advantage of those who would like to employ more disabled people?

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcoming remarks. His comments about the adaptation of buildings and the construction of new buildings that are user-friendly for disabled people are important and we shall pursue them.

Does the Minister recognise that the review that the Department is about to undertake should not reduce the length of courses for disabled people who are on assessment, nor reduce the level of skills of the people who assess them?

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I should like to consider it further with her later. This is an important debate which is not yet concluded.

When my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to catch his breath, will he consider the work of the Shropshire committee for the employment of disabled people, which does a spendid job in the county promoting the employment of disabled people in not only the municipal sector but private business? Will he take the earliest opportunity to come to Shropshire to see the excellent work that it does in encouraging placement?

I thank my hon. Friend and I shall accept his kind invitation.

In view of some of the concerns expressed in the Department's review of July 1989, will there be any resource implications or will additional funds be made available to implement the recommendations?

We have a good record for expenditure on supporting employment among disabled people. Last year about £400 million was spent on 225,000 people, which is an increase from expenditure of £270 million on 165,000 people. Resources are under constant review, but the record speaks for itself.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the unemployment figures for the Hexham constituency for May.

In May 1990, in the parliamentary constituency of Hexham, unemployment was 19·4 per cent. lower than a year ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government policies that have reduced unemployment in my constituency by more than half since June 1987 contrast strongly with the policies of the Labour party, which deliberately seek to undersell the region on every possible occasion by spreading doom and gloom, which simply is not true?

I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. Unemployment in Hexham has fallen by 59·8 per cent. since 1986. I visited the north-east frequently in my former capacity at the Department of Education and Science and saw the work done by its higher and further education institutions, and I look forward to visiting the training and enterprise councils that are being established so effectively in the area. Much good work is being done, which is reflected in the figures.

As a former candidate in Hexham, may I ask the Minister to give the House the exact numbers, not percentages, of unemployed people in Hexham?

I shall have to look that up. The exact number of those unemployed in Hexham is 1,036.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors in (a) 1988 and (b) 1989.

It is estimated that overseas residents spent £6,184 million in the United Kingdom during 1988 and £6,877 million during 1989.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, welcome though that money is for our poor country, some of our institutions are being swamped by visitors? Will he use his weight to secure a second daily changing of the guard ceremony? Will he persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to put his Department's weight against pressure for the interchange for the proposed new underground service at Parliament square? This would have a detrimental effect on the 4 million people who visit Westminster abbey each year. It could be, and should be, relocated to the St. James's park area.

I am disappointed that on this first occasion at the Dispatch Box in my new incarnation, I must slightly disagree with my hon. Friend. I cannot endorse his description of our country as poor. I cannot undertake to deliver him a second changing of the guard, no matter how desirable that may be. As for the location of interchanges, that is a matter which, in all conscience, I must leave to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport, but I shall, of course, draw his points to their attention.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will not encourage tourism and jobs in tourism at the expense of manufacturing? He will be keenly aware that some 200,000 jobs—[Interruption.]

Order. Carry on, please.

The hon. Gentleman will be keenly aware that some 200,000 jobs have gone from textiles and clothing, which is a major manufacturing industry. Will the hon. Gentleman use all his efforts to ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry renegotiates the multi-fibre arrangement to ensure that textile jobs continue to survive?

May I join all my colleagues in welcoming to the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It is most gratifying to see him here.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that he and other members of the Government have taken to encourage tourism, especially improved standards. This drastically contrasts with the Opposition's attitude. What representations has my hon. Friend received about the operation of the 100-day rule for business rating?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to everyone involved in tourism—the British Tourist Authority and tourist boards throughout the country—on doing an excellent job. They will continue to have the fullest possible support of the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve health and safety on construction sites.

The prime legal responsibility to bring about improvements rests with the industry itself. As part of a continuing process to promote long lasting change in the industry, the Health and Safety Commission is to take forward proposals for new legislation to strengthen the legal requirements relating to the management of health and safety on construction sites.

Why is it that in a high-risk industry such as construction—where, according to the Health and Safety Executive 90 per cent. of the deaths that occur could be prevented—there are only 20 overworked specialist construction inspectors for the whole country?

As the hon. Gentleman should know, I recently approved the Health and Safety Commission's plan for 1990-91. I look forward to attending its launch at a ceremony on Monday. The Health and Safety Executive is aware of the need to make proper arrangements to deal with monitoring and safety at construction sites.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that however much one legislates, and however many inspectors one employs, at the end of the day it is a question of the employees and their employers taking action to protect themselves? Does he further agree that we have seen a great improvement in the way in which the major national firms in the construction industry look after their employees?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As is recognised by the more enlightened Opposition Members, it is absurd to suggest that the number of inspectors is the chief determinant of safety on construction sites.

Does the Minister agree that what is now required is a strengthening of the legislation to deal with instances of genuine criminal activity on the part of employers who do not provide proper safety for their workers? Perhaps if some of the directors thought that they might have to go to prison and not just pay a miserable fine, there would be an improvement in the position.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is concern in all quarters about some of the fines that have been imposed. One of the first things that I did on assuming my present responsibilities was to write to the chairman of the Magistrates Association asking him to examine the level of penalties that are being imposed.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

The Prime Minister has now had 20 major ministerial reshuffles during her reign. As a result, 115 Ministers and Whips have been sacked or disposed of. By and large, what was wrong with them?

We have a lot of good talent on these Benches waiting to come in. My second and third team could knock the Opposition's top team into a cocked hat.

Can my right hon. Friend believe that, once upon a time, only half my constituents paid anything for their services? The other half were totally subsidised. Can my right hon. Friend imagine going back to the bad old days, and explain to my constituents what a rating revaluation would mean—the removal of a spending assessment providing my authority with a guideline on what it should be spending, and hence no accountability whatever?

To go back to rates would indeed be a step backward. It was the most unpopular tax that we have ever had; it was also totally unfair. A system that permits 35 million or 36 million people to vote for local authorities and taxes only half of them is totally unfair and unaccountable. I understand that the Opposition are totally against capping local authority expenditure. That would mean higher rates, higher local authority spending and higher taxation all round.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that she is willing—even eager—to sell off PowerGen at a knockdown price to Lord Hanson, another friend of the family?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said yesterday, the Government have a duty to get the best deal for the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman takes his customary swipe at private enterprise: he cannot stand it. He would far rather have nationalisation, run by politicians who know nothing.

There is private enterprise, and there is looking after your friends. I think that the country can tell the difference between the two. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] How can anyone who is selling off the electricity industry say that he is trying to get a good deal for the country, in any case? Most of all, how can anyone who is selling off that industry at a third of its value say that he is getting good value for the country? Whatever happened to the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Energy that no one—neither organisation nor individual—would ever be allowed to own more than 15 per cent. of the company?

PowerGen will be sold off at the highest price. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has an indicative price and other bids will be asked for. Is the right hon. Gentleman against selling it off at the highest price? Or does he allow his prejudices against private enterprise to dictate his every sentence?

The Prime Minister can twist and turn all she likes. The truth is that, in breach of the promises that she has already made, she is selling off at a fraction of its value a highly profitable company to a bosom chum and major contributor to the Conservative party. Is not it obvious that this Session is ending as it began—with sleaze and shadiness at the heart of the Government?

In one respect the Session is ending as it began, with the right hon. Gentleman not listening to any reply, but going on with a supplementary question that he had worked out before the reply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy indicated that he will maximise the price, and he is duty bound to do that to get the best value for the taxpayer. However, other bids will be asked for. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that PowerGen is being sold at a knockdown price, why do not he and some of his trade union friends put forward a consortium and bid at a higher price? No, the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense as usual. [Interruption.]

Order. Settle down now.

As this is the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain which will be celebrated in September, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay her tribute to the heroism of the few and assure those 1,000 or so who remain that they are not forgotten? Will she join me in commending to the British public the Reach for the Sky appeal to raise £20 million so that those who so valiantly fought for the freedom that we in the House take for granted today will not be forgotten?

I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will gladly respond to my hon. Friends invitation. We shall never forget and can never repay the debt of gratitude that we owe in particular to those pilots and to the other people who lost their lives during the second world war. I hope that people will respond gladly to that appeal.

Did the Prime Minister notice yesterday that her Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the alternative to his plan was a two-speed Europe? Would the Prime Minister prefer that to Britain joining a single currency and a central bank?

I believe that the plan that we have put up can gather support from all European countries. It will be an effective next stage to Delors stage 1. I think that we all approve of Delors stage 1, or at least most of us do, and we are prepared to have a stage 2 which would unite people. Why is the right hon. Gentleman constantly trying to divide them?

Will my right hon. Friend find time to commission a special inquiry into the administrative cost and duration of a revaluation of every house in the country to effect a return to the rating system, or would she rather proceed with figures that are 20 years out of date?

I did at one time consider a rating revaluation which would have been 17 years after the previous one. However, we had enough experience in Scotland of a domestic rating revaluation only seven years after the previous one. That resulted in a bigger proportion being paid by the domestic ratepayer and rates on individual ratepayers which were utterly intolerable as well as grossly unfair.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

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

Is there any truth in the rumour that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is still a man of principle, that he has not sacrificed his beliefs for a little patronage and that he has been appointed to the Government Whips Office only to mastermind the repeal of the poll tax?

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) shares those characteristics with every other person on the Government side of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend give strong guidance to local authorities on their priorities for community care? Is she aware that the 64-year-old mother of my constituent Paul Hargreaves cannot go on holiday tomorrow because Bolton council says that his disabilities are too severe for it to look after him? Should not local authorities get their act together before taking on more responsibilities?

I am sure that we all sympathise with that family. I know of the particular attention that my hon. Friend pays to those with disabilities and the amount of work that he has done for them. I hope that he will be able to get the mother a holiday.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Aah."] Yes, I do. Most of us have experienced cases of that kind in our constituencies and know that, during August, hospitals will frequently take in for a fortnight people who are in need of attention to permit their parents to go away.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

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

As a chemist, and having been Prime Minister for 11 years, which environmental achievement would the Prime Minister like to be remembered for—the deterioration in Britain's beaches, the continued dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea, the 10-fold growth in the import of toxic waste, the continuing increase in carbon dioxide emissions, Britain's exports of chlorofluorocarbons—[Interruption.]

Order. Normally we have one question.

Or the fact that when this Government leave office not a single one of our power stations will have been fitted with desulphurisation equipment. Is it any surprise that Britain is now the dirty man of Europe?

Like many other people, I could scarcely hear what the hon. Gentleman said, except for his remarks about beaches and water right at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman asked me which I prefer to be remembered for. I should like to recall to the House that the European Community sent a directive in 1975 to the then Labour Government requiring that all beaches that were not up to standard or in accordance with the directive be identified and that something be done about them. The Labour Government did absolutely nothing. It took a Tory Government—[Interruption.]

Order. It takes a lot of time to answer multiple questions.

The Labour Government, I am reminded by one of my right hon. Friends, promptly cut capital expenditure on water. It took a Conservative Government to come in and increase capital expenditure on water, to identify those beaches, to deal with three quarters of them in the first 11 years, and, in the next few years, to have a £3 billion investment programme to bring all those beaches up to standard. I am glad to go on to answer the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have a lot of information. For example, on achievements since the 1987 election, the national debt has been reduced by £30,000 million—[Interruption.]

Order. I have already said that multiple questions always take more time.

Two hundred thousand more businesses opened than closed, we had the top number of jobs in this country ever, and the 1988 Budget reduced basic income tax to 25p—et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Sunday Times that the Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops of Liverpool have requested a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment because of the financial chaos into which Liverpool city council has been plunged as a result of the Liberal Democrats voting with Militant Tendency? Is not that the worst case of political prostitution we have ever seen?

I accept what my hon. Friend says and it shows precisely what happens when local government gets into the hands of Labour authorities with no overall control. That is precisely what would happen if socialism ever got in charge of Britain.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

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

As the Prime Minister was so keen to defend the right of Mr. Salman Rushdie to publish his book "The Satanic Verses", may we have an assurance that she will be equally diligent and vigorous in defending the rights of Muslims who want the film "International Guerillas" to be distributed, particularly as Mr. Rushdie has said that no question of criminal libel arises, or are we simply to have double standards?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The decision to refuse the film "International Guerillas" a certificate was taken by the British Board of Film Classification which, having received legal advice that the recording might constitute a work of criminal libel, decided in accordance with normal practice that it would not be appropriate to issue a certificate. The board is an entirely independent body and if the distributors of the recording wish to appeal against its decision, they may apply to the Video Appeals Committee in the usual way. That is what the House decided and we cannot overturn it.