To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures the Government are considering to enable action to be taken against unlawful industrial action.

We intend to give people who are denied goods or services because of unlawful industrial action a new right to go to court to have it stopped.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure to which he referred will greatly improve industrial relations in this country? Does he also agree that it will help us to attract even more inward investment into this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The effect of our step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations has seen this year the lowest number of days lost through strike action ever recorded. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of that in respect of inward investment. We in this country enjoy 62 per cent. of United States investment into the European Community and more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment. That is a testimony to the success of the Government's policies in that area.

Is the Minister aware that if the French Government had taken the lorry drivers to court, they would be out on strike for another week? Is he aware that unofficial action is best settled by negotiations and not by the kind of violence that we saw during the miners' strike, the poll tax riots in Trafalgar square and the incidents that we saw at Wapping? Negotiation is the best way to settle any industrial dispute.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the law in France is, in many respects, far tougher than the law in this country. He must not tempt me down that path. I agree with him that negotiation is always the best way to resolve disputes. They should not result in industrial action. The success of the Government's policy has been to avoid industrial action by creating a climate in which the unions have been given back to their members and are no longer subject to the whims of the trade union barons from whom the Labour party seems keen to distance itself.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made with the skillcheck scheme.

The consultative document, which the White Paper "People, Jobs and Opportunity" promised, has been issued and will he discussed with representatives of training and enterprise councils and other interested parties in the next month.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the progress of the skillcheck scheme, it is right to welcome the development of the national training targets as an example of the combination of thinking from training and education leaders and business leaders in the community? The achievements of those targets is well worth while and will be helped by the development of training agencies such as Beneast in my constituency.

We are doing a considerable amount to encourage the attainment of those targets. My hon. Friend rightly identified the importance that the Government attach to them. They are not Government targets, but they are targets to which we subscribe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's expenditure on training for 1992–93.

The Government expect to spend £2·7 billion on training, enterprise and vocational education in 1992–93.

Will the Minister comment on the report in The Sunday Times that the Government, because of their problems with public expenditure, are considering scrapping payments of up to £35 a week to young people on the youth training scheme?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in The Sunday Times.

Is it not a fact that, irrespective of expenditure, the quality of training has improved immeasurably in the past five years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right. We attach great importance to training and to the results that people who take training courses achieve at the end of them. Obviously, we must ask a number of questions. I am satisfied that youth training fulfils an important role for young people.

Is the Minister aware that, this year, Durham training and enterprise council has invested about £1 million and at the same time has drastically cut training for special needs? Does he agree that that is absolutely disgraceful, and will he make representations to Durham 'TEC to put that right?

I know that Durham TEC will meet its youth training guarantee, and the Government are determined that that should be done. It is for a local TEC to decide its operation. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific complaint, obviously I will look at it and take it up with the relevant TEC.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what support the trade unions are offering in the employment action programme.

I regret to say that the Trades Union Congress voted last September to oppose employment action. [Interruption.] That is a programme which helps the unemployed to maintain their skills while undertaking temporary work which is of benefit to the whole community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that progress by the National Association of Local Government Officers and other unions is destroying employment action projects in Cirencester and Tewkesbury? Does he agree that the Opposition's criticisms would be better directed at their trade union friends and not at the Government, who are fully committed to doing everything that they possibly can to create as many jobs as possible?

I was aware of the difficulties that have been created with Gloucestershire county council in respect of programmes under employment action. I hope that the whole country will have heard Opposition Members' cheers at the decision by the TUC to boycott a programme which is geared to helping people who are unemployed and helping communities by providing projects of that kind. I hope also that Opposition Members will recognise that the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), also voted at its previous conference to boycott youth training and employment training. So let us have no more humbug from Opposition Members that they are concerned about those programmes.

Does the Minister agree that we had community programmes which provided jobs that were worth while to the community at reasonable wages, then we had employment training, which provided work with no wages but some training, but that employment action is a combination of the worst features of both, combining no training with no wages? Employment action is not a new idea: it is a very old idea—called slavery.

That is one of the silliest questions that I have heard in the House. The hon. Gentleman should know that people on employment action are paid benefit plus £10. Exactly the same applies to those on employment training. The hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to the many thousands of people who are engaged in running those programmes to help the unemployed with considerable success and distinction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions she has had with her EC counterparts on the proposed 48-hour-week directive.

I last met my European Community counterparts to discuss the 48-hour working week and other matters on 24 June at the Social Affairs Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the working time proposals challenge the concept of subsidiarity? Does she intend to challenge that directive in the European Court?

The Government have always made it absolutely clear that they see no need for that directive. We do not want that directive. I remind my hon. Friend that there is no directive, but if there should be a directive we would certainly reserve the right to challenge its legal base in the European Court.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell the House whether she discussed with her counterparts in the European Community the fact that workers in this country who are involved in perfectly legitimate industrial action can be sacked arbitrarily and that this is the only European Community country in which that disgraceful situation pertains? What action is she prepared to take about the situation?

It is absolutely clear that such directives, which impose unnecessary burdens on the labour market, are the worst possible solution for employers and employees.

My right hon. Friend is aware that an exellent firm called Celtech in my constituency works four 12-hour day shifts, followed by four days off, followed by four 12-hour night shifts. If the directive came into operation the workers could voluntarily opt out of the 48-hour provision, but could they opt out of the provisions which forbid such long night shifts? That is extremely important. I have spoken to the staff and they like working those hours. They like the system, the industry likes it, and it does a good job.

My hon. Friend is right to stress that workers in Britain like the flexibility that our labour market affords them, and that they appreciate the opportunity to work more than 48 hours a week if they so choose. Rest periods and shifts would be controlled by reference periods and there is considerable flexibility therein.

After the recent Council of Ministers meeting, the Secretary of State told the world that she had made no concessions, but will she confirm that when the directive comes through it will establish the principle of a 48-hour maximum working week, of minimum rest breaks and of minimum holiday entitlement? In those circumstances, will she respond to the question put by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) as to whether she intended to take legal action against the directive? Or is it simply huff and puff?

Perhaps I can repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said as he does not appear to have heard me. There is no directive. I have made it clear, and I make it clear again this afternoon, that we do not see a need for a directive. We do not want a directive. That is still the case. We reserve the right to challenge it, if and when a directive is adopted. Faced with proposals subject to qualified majority voting, which the United Kingdom could not block on its own, we had to do what we could to improve the proposed directive and to prevent its most damaging effects on employers and employees. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and his hon. Friends would welcome those effects. We were successful in improving the directive.

Did my right hon. Friend note that it was urged on her a moment ago that it should be impossible to dismiss strikers for being on strike? Will she confirm that that position is so extreme that it was not adopted even by previous Labour Administrations?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the assertions made by Opposition Members in respect of the directive, other labour market matters and industrial action defy description.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are her plans concerning the future of wages councils.

The Government have made it clear on many occasions that the wages councils have no permanent place in the labour market.

Are not the Government in fact planning to rid themselves entirely of wages councils? How does the Minister reconcile the withdrawal of such little protection as is afforded by wages councils with the fantastic salaries that the heads of the formerly nationalised industries award themselves? How do those two things combine to achieve a country at ease with itself?

The Government's position is clear. Wages should be negotiated between employers and employees, based on productivity, profitability and the firm's ability to provide the wages which are the subject of the negotiation. They should not be set centrally by the Government or Government bodies. The hon. Lady will recall that in the recent general election the Opposition proposed a national wage. They were soundly defeated because most people recognised that it would cost between 1 million and 2 million jobs.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have not had a national wage? Will he say how many wages councils there are? Has employment increased or fallen in those industries that have given up wages councils? Has he done a survey of small employers, who often find that it is of some help to have wages set by wages councils because it provides a way of finding a just level of pay for their employees'?

I shall try to deal with all five questions. There are 26 wages councils. My hon. Friend is right to point to the falling numbers of people employed in many of the wages council industries. Some of them have names which reflect the turn of the century, such as the ostrich, fancy feather and artificial flower wages council. The flax and hemp wages council and others have disappeared. My hon. Friend is right to stress that, for the rest of this century and for the 21st century, the way forward is for wages to be negotiated according to employers' ability to pay, and reflecting local circumstances.

Does the Minister accept that in such areas employers frequently ask that wages councils should be maintained, to protect them from unfair competition as well as to protect their work forces? Would not the Government's determination to retain the right for Britain to have its own labour market conditions ring a little more true to the unemployed and those with poor conditions if there were any evidence that the Government were prepared to do anything to guarantee the rights of the low paid?

The Government's record on the low paid is second to none—[Interruption.] We have taken measures through the social security system to maintain the income coming into the family home. If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the facts on wages councils, he will find that many people covered by them are second wage earners. Unemployment is the greatest cause of poverty, and statutory minimum wages destroy jobs and put people on the dole.

Is my hon. Friend aware that increasing numbers of employers are becoming more concerned about the operations of the wages councils? Will he also confirm that, in so far as the councils set minimum wage levels, their operations often lead to the destruction of jobs—a fact which seems to have escaped Opposition Members before and since the election?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will recall that when we removed young people from the scope of the wages councils. Opposition Members predicted that it would result in falling wage levels. On the contrary, it has not and there is no evidence to sustain such a view. I repeat the point that I have tried to get across to Opposition Members—there is no point in giving people a minimum wage if the consequence is that they have no jobs.

Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)? How does he justify abandoning all forms of protection against poverty pay for the 2·5 million people who work in pubs, hotels and shops throughout the country—there are thousands in every constituency—who will lose hundreds of pounds a year and more if wages councils go? How does he justify that, when the chairmen of the utilities that the Government privatised are paying themselves telephone-figure salaries out of monopoly profits while he and his hon. Friends do nothing?

The hon. Gentleman is talking poppycock. He knows perfectly well that about two thirds of the people covered by wages councils are paid more than the minimum wage set by those councils. That is an expensive, bureaucratic anachronism, which the Government have made clear has no permanent place in the labour market.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs she estimates have been created in the Greater London area since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

I am afraid that the information that my hon. Friend requests is not available.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 1,000 jobs which will shortly come on stream at the Tesco development on the former Hoover site in Perivale in my constituency'? Will he ensure that the employment services are geared to help people to get jobs on that site, which we have worked so hard for so long to obtain, and elsewhere in my constituency in Ealing and in greater London?

I am pleased to hear of the jobs being created in my hon. Friend's constituency. I assure him that the employment service will do all that it can to help to recruit for that company if the company asks it to do so.

Does the Minister agree that unemployment in London continues to rise week by week and day by day? Does he accept that the Government are responsible for that? Is it not time that they stopped saying that they can do nothing about it and started to take action to put people back to work?

The Government believe that one way of ensuring that employment rises is to conquer inflation, which we have taken action to do. That follows the point made by the noble Lord Callaghan that high inflation leads to high unemployment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that even more important than curbing inflation—important though that undoubtedly is—is the necessity to get real interest rates down substantially and fast? Will that not be the best help for small, businesses, and the construction industry in particular, to offer the people of London real hope of increased employment, which is so urgently needed in the capital?

My hon. Friend will realise that that is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are drawn to his attention.

When will the Government come clean on their employment record? Why, in December 1991, were there 191,000 fewer people in work in Britain than in 1979? More importantly, in the 18 months to December 1991, why did Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy have an employment growth—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should restrict his question to the Greater London area since 1979.

Why, relative to the employment growth in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France of 912,000 in 18 months to December 1991, was there a drop in the number of people in employment in London between December 1981 and December 1991? After 13 years, cannot the House and the country expect the Government to be taking employment seriously?

What the Government are not prepared to do is to take lectures or sermons from the Opposition. We put our record to the test not so long ago. The Opposition put their proposals to the test; they were rejected by the electorate and ours were endorsed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will set out her Department's latest training initiative in Essex and Basildon.

The Essex training and enterprise council, with the Government, is playing a major role in helping people in Essex to get and keep their jobs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last month I had the honour to open the Basildon job club, which has already been successful in securing jobs for a number of my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such job clubs have a vital role to play in enabling my constituents who have been long-term unemployed to gain the confidence to return to the job market?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing concern for his now famous constituency, and I am delighted that he had the pleasure and honour of opening the Basildon job club. Job clubs do a very good job in getting people back to work as fast and effectively as possible. Nearly half the people who attend job clubs go from them into employment, and I am glad to say that this year we have 220,000 places in job clubs.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the training initiative for Essex will be irrelevant unless she stops the haemorrhaging of jobs throughout Essex? In particular, will she consider the need for training initiatives to meet the redundancies of Marconi workers in Chelmsford and the hundreds of workers facing redundancy at Ford's in Aveley and Dunton? What does she intend to do to stop the unemployment, particularly in Basildon where it has exceeded 160 per cent. in two years?

I think that it has escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, and that of many of his hon. Friends, that the Opposition's economic policies would do nothing but increase unemployment. The only way to create lasting employment is to pursue a policy of low inflation, as this Government are doing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people from Castle Point, including many from Canvey island, have to travel to beautiful Basildon to get training and further education? While Basildone does an excellent job for my people, should not provision for those services be made on Canvey island for its people? My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is not a single further education place available on Canvey island.

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's plea for his beautiful constituency. Until such places are provided, I feel sure that his constituents will benefit from the excellent service described by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon.

On a point of information, will the right hon. Lady tell us—I believe that her Department now has this information—how many young people in Essex arid in Britain are waiting for a training place?

I do not have that information, but I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of the answer that I gave when we last had employment questions. I said that there were sufficient resources to provide youth training places for all young people and that resources need not be a problem to training and enterprise councils. I also said that the machinery for providing those places and for cutting down queues should not fail young people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she intends to take to reduce unemployment in the Southampton travel-to-work area.

The employment service in Southampton and the Hampshire training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people find the best and quickest route back to employment. The latest figures for the Southampton travel-to-work area show that there was a reduction of 298 in the number of people claiming benefit.

Does the Minister accept that during the past three years unemployment in Southampton has risen from 7,400 to almost 13,000 and that there are now 42 unemployed claimants chasing every jobcentre vacancy? Is he aware that according to yesterday's Treasury model forecasts, my constituents can expect unemployment to rise even higher?

No, I do not accept that. My point was that there was a reduction in the number of people claiming benefit last month. The way to ensure that employment grows is to keep inflation low and not to create artificial barriers to employment—the policy on which the Labour party fought the last election.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most serious threats to jobs in the Southampton area is the delay in completing the M3 motorway at Twyford down, which has resulted in some of the worst traffic jams in southern England? Is he further aware that if the Labour party had won the election, it would have carried out its commitment to stop all work on that motorway, which would have seriously damaged employment in Southampton?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the importance of infrastructure in serving particular regions. and areas. The former Member of Parliament for Southampton, Itchen, Mr. Christopher Chope, played a leading role in securing the completion of the M3, which is a great credit to him. I will convey the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to better co-ordinate policies for 16-plus training and education.

The jointly produced White Paper "Education and Training in the 21st Century" published in May 1991 was designed to encourage young people to develop to the best of their ability, remove barriers to opportunity, achieve higher standards and provide more choice. We are making good progress towards those aims.

Pausing only to apologise for the split infinitive in the question in my name on the Order Paper, which I assure my hon. Friend the Minister was not in the question that I submitted to the Table Office, I invite him to congratulate all those in my constituency who have worked so hard to deliver an important part of the Government's plans for the 16-plus age group. I refer in particular to the training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce and the wider business community. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in the unlikely event that allegations that the YT guarantee is not being delivered in a particular area are proved to be true, he will make every effort to ensure that the guarantee is forthcoming.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the praise that he rightly gives to his local training and enterprise council. I am glad that he has approached it to establish how the guarantee is operating—rather than rely on the scare stories that we often hear from Opposition Members. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government take the YT guarantee very seriously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has just made an announcement about the way in which we shall monitor the scheme to ensure that it is delivered throughout the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that 500 young school leavers in the London borough of Newham have no jobs, no training place and no benefits? That is the situation this year, as it was last year—and the same is projected for the future. Will the Minister give that matter his personal attention? Is he aware that his Department has received a letter inviting a Minister to the borough to study the situation on the ground? Will he make a positive response?

I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will check it out and I hope to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that 60 per cent. of young people are staying on at school —the highest ever figure? In my own constituency, the Kidderminster college of further education has seen the number of full-time students rise by 10 per cent. over the past year. Is that not evidence of what occurs when colleges of further education are given greater flexibility and independence from local authorities? Ought we not to pursue that theme, with the support of industry?

I agree. The staying-on level in Hereford and Worcester is 63 per cent., which is slightly above the national average. The increase in the numbers staying on for further education are surely welcomed in all parts of the House.

When all the best estimates suggest that the youth training guarantee is not being delivered to between 60,000 and 100,000 youngsters—and for many of them, that means poverty and homelessness—why do the Government not accept the figures and act upon them? Is it because the Minister is ignorant of the facts, or is he simply callously indifferent?

It is because this Minister deals with the facts that he does not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figures. They are bogus and scaremongering. We have made it clear that we want to ensure that the guarantee is met. It is a pity that a number of trade unions and Opposition Members refuse to have anything to do with the youth training guarantee.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she next expects to meet the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to discuss the employment of people with special needs.

My right hon. Friend or my noble Friend would certainly consider a request for a meeting, but none has been made.

Should not the Government be using their own initiative and meeting organisations such as RADAR, in which case they would be hearing of people's concerns that every Department, including the Minister's and even the Prime Minister's, is not employing people with disabilities? Is not it disgraceful that this week—the sixth anniversary of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 being passed —because the Government do not fully implement the Act, people with disabilities are not in responsible positions? May I remind the Government that they are not accepting responsibility for giving jobs to people with disabilities?

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair, uncharacteristically so. He must not assume that we have to have a meeting with every organisation in order to maintain contact. In fact, I have just received a letter from RADAR in which it raised one or two aspects of help for the disabled which arose from our previous Question Time. The Department maintains a close liaison with such organisations.

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that the public sector as a whole is not as good as the private sector at employing disabled people? Will he take specific steps to encourage public sector employers to do better?

My hon. Friend has a point. It is certainly true that the public sector has not been as successful as the private sector, but I do not think that there is any room for complacency on either side. The employment service uses whatever mechanisms are open to it to try to encourage more help and support for disabled people, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be borne in mind by the organisations in the public sector that could do better.

Will the Minister undertake to examine the problem of youth training for those with special needs because the cost of training such people is legitimately high? At present all over Scotland—and, I am sure, elsewhere—there are signs that in future it will not be possible to meet the costs of the youth training guarantee for those with special needs without taking from elsewhere. Will the Minister consider that and ensure that those with special needs are safeguarded?

The Government have made the position perfectly clear—the youth training guarantee stands. If the hon. Gentleman knows of specific examples in Scotland where people with special needs or people who are disabled are not having their demands met, he should take them up with the local enterprise companies which are responsible for the delivery of the youth training guarantee. We have made it clear that the youth training guarantee will not fail to be delivered because of a lack of resources. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that those with special needs should be given priority and should not be left behind. That is reflected in our policies throughout the employment service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the proposed European directive that would restrict the overtime that British workers are allowed to work.

The Social Affairs Council did not reach a common position on the proposed working time directive on 24 June so we do not have a directive. In discussions on the text, the United Kingdom secured all its key objectives, in particular the right for employees to work for more than 48 hours a week if they choose to do so. I made it clear that the United Kingdom continues to have very severe doubts about the directive as a whole and its proposed legal base.

I wonder whether the next time my right hon. Friend meets her colleagues in Europe she will express my concern that, having been a Member of Parliament for more than five years—[Interruption.]—I have yet to receive a single letter from a single constituent complaining that he has too many hours to work. [Interruption.]

Order. Will the House come to Order? The hon. Gentleman cannot be heard. Even though he has been here five years, he is going to be heard.

Opposition Members cannot take it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I shall be pleased to pass on to my European counterparts the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, who may now find that he receives a letter or two on the issue, and I feel certain that they will be in support of the position taken by the United Kingdom. The number of hours worked by MEPs and MPs would be excluded from the provisions of the directive, should it ever come to pass.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House guarantee not to guillotine the Maastricht Bill when it returns to the House for debate?

The Leader of the House will guarantee that the Government will consider all matters carefully before deciding how to proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pass as quickly as possible legislation dealing with imitation firearms? Is he aware that they are becoming a serious problem for the public, because one can suffer as much trauma and be robbed just as effectively with an imitation firearm as with a real one?

My hon. Friend's concern is shared in many quarters. The Home Secretary is on the Bench beside me and will have heard what has been said.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Government's moratorium on stamp duty for house purchase has been a success?

I believe that the arrangements brought forward by my right hon. Friend and other colleagues at the turn of the year have materially assisted in reducing the number of repossessions and in bringing about an improvement in the housing market compared with what the position would have been. Frankly, I would find the hon. Gentleman's answer more credible but for the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I understand speaking for the Opposition, described the suspension of stamp duty at the time as a racket and a gimmick.

If it has been of material benefit to the housing industry, is it not a fact that when we are in the depths of the worst recession for 60 years, with confidence at an all-time low and the building and construction industry in disarray, this is the last moment to remove any incentive from the desperately needful building sector? As the Government have still not used up all the money that they allocated for the scheme, why will they not concentrate the relief on transactions up to £100,000, thus helping the lower end of the market and first-time buyers? That would be a sensible step to take in the depths of the present awful recession.

The aim of the scheme was to bring forward transactions that might otherwise have been delayed. I believe that it has made an important contribution in doing just that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Hastings and Rye.

I have been asked to reply.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the opportunity of my right hon. Friend visiting Hastings and Rye and hope that he will leave plenty of time to come down the road affectionately known as the snail trail. Will he also visit the Conquest hospital, which is operated by the Hastings and Rother trust, which took its first out-patients yesterday and will take its first in-patients on 20 July? Does he agree that this is another indication that only Conservative health policies deliver health care to the nation?

I am sure that, if he is able to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish to join her in welcoming the opening of the new hospital—and, indeed, in looking forward to phase 2, which is currently under consideration by the regional health authority.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House agree that high-rise tower blocks are entirely unsuitable as homes for young children? Does he, like me, regret that, over the past few years, the number of young children trapped in Southampton tower blocks has risen two and a half times, and that hundreds of children will never have a decent home? Does he accept that Southampton council has a lower-than-average number of vacancies and that the number of children who are trapped in a high-rise hell is a direct result of Government policies? Can he offer those children any hope and what action will he take to ensure that they have a chance to live in a house with a garden?

The Government have a range of policies designed to improve the supply of rented accommodation. They are channelling £6 billion into housing associations over the next two years to provide more than 150,000 new homes for rent and low-cost purchase by 1995–96. I very much hope that that will help to solve Southampton's problems, given that the local authority wishes to participate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing feeling on both sides of the House that the county hall site would be ideal for the London school of economics? Would it not be poignantly symbolic if the Prime Minister, while he is President of the European Council, assisted in the development on the Thames of a great European university on a scale to rival anything on offer in Paris, rather than allowing a fine building to become a second-rate hotel for Japanese package tours?

My hon. Friend will know that the disposal of county hall is a matter for the London residuary body. It is now up to the LSE to put firm proposals to that body.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

I have been asked to reply.

The Lord President will know that I shall be presenting my Homicide (Defence of Provocation) Bill today. Does he agree that a woman who acts in desperation after suffering sustained domestic violence ought to have recourse to a mitigating plea of provocation? Is not the present law—which has gaoled women such as Sara Thornton and Kiranjit Ahluwalia —unjust, and should it not be changed?

I understand the concern that is felt about the matter, not least because of my past social services responsibilities. I am not sure that the solution is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I certainly undertake to bear his points in mind, along with my right hon. Friends.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of fishermen are demonstrating outside the House today, largely because they fear that the conservation measures required by the EC—which are being dealt with in the House—will not be observed by their counterparts on the other side of the Channel? That has happened many times in the past. Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food look again at ways of preserving our fishing industry?

I assure my hon. Friend that it is no part of the British Government's purpose to introduce what I take to be sensible measures to promote the conservation of fish stocks and the long-term future of the industry, only to see those measures destroyed by the actions of others. My right hon. Friend the Minister will take every possible step to ensure that that does not happen.

To ask the Prime Minister what approaches have been received by Her Majesty's Government concerning reallocation of powers currently the responsibility of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

I have been asked to reply.

Yes, but that is answering a question that was not asked. So what is new? Is this not about the possible repatriation of powers? Is it not a fact that President Major as well as President Delors have been in favour of that, or have mooted the possibility? In respect of the President of the Commission, why is it that the Commission must always call the shots? Would it not be an advantage if it reacted only to requests from the Council of Ministers or the Heads of Government and therefore made the whole outfit more intergovernmental than it is already?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that my answer did address the question that he asked. The plenary session between the United Kingdom presidency and the Commission last week, which I attended, very much addressed precisely that question. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that plans are in hand to undertake a review of existing legislation before the Edinburgh summit at the end of the year.

Did my right hon. Friend see certain scholarly articles that were published over the weekend drawing attention to the fact that the word "subsidiarity" is derived from the Latin word "subsidium" which, apparently, is a term of Roman Catholic dogma and that the Roman interpretation of that word is quite different from the Anglican?

Coming from a somewhat mixed religious background, I do not intend to allow myself to be caught up in ecclesiastical controversy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Two weeks ago one of my hon. Friends with a London constituency raised with the Prime Minister the question of the housing crisis. The Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester—

Question!

Why don't you shut up? [Interruption.]

Order. It may be very amusing, but it is a great waste of time when we are nearly at 3.30. Can we hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) in silence now?

In responding, the Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester, and said that we had empty properties. May I point out to the Leader of the House that we have hundreds of empty properties in Manchester that are dangerous and unlettable but that central Government are not allowing Manchester to borrow money to make those properties habitable? Is it not time that the Government got their spending priorities right and accepted their responsibilities, which clearly they are failing to do now?

The Government have clearly accepted their responsibilities, with the arrangements that they have made concerning approvals for capital expenditure. I hope that Manchester will look carefully at the policy that leads to so many houses being empty.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the level of public concern over the fact that a professional drug courier should have been protected from police action by hospital staff? Does he agree that drugs constitute an appalling danger, particularly to young people, and that the police ought to be helped, not hindered, in their fight against drugs?

Again, I think that my hon. Friend raises a point which will be of concern to other hon. Members. I have seen reports of the case. Clearly, as I think all hon. Members will agree, it is important to balance a patient's right to medical confidentiality against the safety of the community at large, but this is a very complex area. I understand that the chief executive of the North Staffordshire health authority is seeking an urgent meeting with the chief constable to discuss the confidentiality issue and agree clearer lines of communication.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Last year 69,000 families had their homes repossessed. At the moment, 290,000 borrowers are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage repayments. The Government's mortgage rescue scheme has so far managed to rescue 12 home buyers. When will the Government make a serious attempt to help home buyers and borrowers who are in difficulties?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that as a result of the action taken at the turn of the year some 55,000 repossessions will be prevented this year, and that the Halifax building society reckons that its repossessions are down by about 40 per cent. over the latest six months compared with the last six months of last year. That is substantial progress which has helped many tens of thousands of families.