To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

This morning I returned from a meeting of the economic summit in Houston. I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Following last week's conviction for murder in Kilmarnock of a 15-year-old who was addicted to machine gambling, will the Government now impose the severest panalties on those who flout the law by exposing people under 18 to the dangers of machine gambling?

We have done our level best to increase the penalties for such matters, and not always with the support of the Opposition. I note the hon. Gentleman's strong views that such penalties should be further increased.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

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

Recalling that it was this Government and the Conservative party alone who supported the right-to-buy legislation which was successfully piloted through the House, is my right hon. Friend aware that in Basildon we have sold 14,000 council, commission and development corporation properties? Will she consider further enhancing people's opportunity for home ownership by extending the rents-into-mortgages scheme to the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am delighted to hear that the Government's right-to-buy legislation is doing so well in my hon. Friend's Constituency, as it is elsewhere. It gives a new opportunity to people to own their homes and eventually to pass them on to their children. The pilot scheme that operates in Scotland and Wales to turn rents into mortgages is another advantageous way for people to own their homes, and that scheme is doing very well. When we have more experience of it we shall see whether it should be extended further.

Is not it clear to the Prime Minister that what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said to The Spectator cannot be unsaid and that therefore he can have no place in her Cabinet?

My right hon. Friend has expressed his very great regret and has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.

Has not the Prime Minister made it clear by that reply that the only reason for the right hon. Gentleman staying in the Cabinet is that his views are her views?

No, Sir. Those views—which have been withdrawn—did not represent the Government's views or, indeed, mine.

Is not it the case that when, within the terms of collective responsibility as everyone understands them, a Secretary of State expresses views strongly and graphically that are contrary to the views of the Government, that Secretary of State is sacked? Will not the Prime Minister recognise that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is not just deeply offensive to our allies and partners, but deeply damaging to our country's interests? He must go.

My right hon. Friend has expressed his very great regret—[Interruption.]

Order.

—and unreservedly withdrawn his remarks. They do not represent the Government's view or, indeed, my own. I have always understood that it is the custom of the House that when remarks have been apologised for and unreservedly withdrawn—as they have been in this case—that withdrawal is gracefully accepted.

When my right hon. Friend meets the leaders of the European Community countries, will she tell them that a country that controls its inflation better than any other by strict monetary policies and offers rapid economic growth to the benefit of the whole Community—including the United Kingdom—is a country greatly to be admired, and that West Germany plays an important and useful role in Europe and the world at large?

Yes, Sir. Indeed, I said words almost identical to that at the economic summit, pointing out that Germany had managed to keep her inflation and unemployment low and to keep her growth, investment, savings ratio and exports high, and that all that was greatly to be admired.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. It will take time out of Prime Minister's questions, but—[Interruption.] Order. I must take it if the matter needs my immediate attention.

The Prime Minister told the House that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has apologised to the House, but she has apologised for him—

Order. That is certainly not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must sit down: he is taking a lot of time out of questions.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

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

Does not the Prime Minister realise that she cannot talk about increasing international co-operation while retaining in her Cabinet a Secretary of State who has not only been downright unneighbourly, but has cast a slight on the attitude towards the European Community? Does she agree that this is the worst example of little Englander behaviour that we have seen? [Interruption.]

Order. I must ask Government Members to listen to the question.

What will the Cabinet do to redress the position?

The Prime Minster:

The Government were prominent in furthering co-operation at the economic summit in Houston, to the benefit of each and every one of the G7 countries. I have nothing to add to what I said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should all welcome Mr. Gorbachev's fine handling of his party's 28th congress in Moscow? Is not that a pointer for good international stability in the future?

Yes, Sir. The Government have consistently supported President Gorbachev's efforts towards reform in the Soviet Union, and we earnestly hope that they will be successful. Clearly, his political reforms have already been successful and have led to freedom of speech and of movement, and freedom to emigrate on a scale undreamt of two or three years ago. At the Houston summit we agreed that each of us should give—some are already giving—technical assistance and know-how training, and we have embarked upon a study through the International Monetary Fund to see what further help can best be given and what criteria should be fulfilled before such help is given.

Is not the real significance of the comments of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reported this morning that they reveal a deep and irreconcilable split on Europe in the Cabinet which is damaging Britain's interests and causing confusion in the Government's policy and contempt for Britain abroad? Does not the Prime Minister realise that if she will not sack him, she condones him, and that her Government will remain in shambles for as long as he remains a member of it?

No, Mr. Speaker. Those remarks did not represent the Government's views or my own. Britain's influence and reputation were greatly enhanced at the Houston summit by the spirit of co-operation that we showed and by our efforts to bring about a successful communiqué at the end of that summit.

Since it appears from recent court decisions that the Shops Act 1950 is contrary to the treaty of Rome, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing amending legislation on Sunday trading, preferably after the next General Election?

My hon. and learned Friend asks a bold question. Before the Government introduce legislation after the next election we should seek assurance from those who opposed the previous legislation that we have an acceptable compromise, particularly in view of some recent court cases. That would be advisable, and if my hon. and learned Friend would like to start collecting the voices and the views I should be very grateful.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

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

The track record of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of insensitive and outrageous statements on a number of issues is well known. Is there anything that the Secretary of State could say that would get him the sack?

I have indicated clearly that my right hon. Friend has unreservedly withdrawn his remarks.[Interruption.] When remarks are so unreservedly withdrawn we accept that withdrawal gracefully.

Hon. Members:

Where is he?

Order. A few moments ago I had to reprove Members on the Government Benches. Now I must ask the Opposition to let the Prime Minister have a fair hearing on this.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in Hungary, as I thought hon. Members knew.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the great success of the abolition of the dock labour scheme a year ago, there is now an urgent case for following it up with a new public enabling Bill to allow the rapid development of other port enterprises by the privatisation of the outdated trust port structures?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The abolition of the dock labour scheme was a great success for the ports and their hinterlands. I understand that for other ports in the trust to be privatised it would have to be done by the private Bill procedure, which is very cumbersome. We are looking into the possibility of an enabling Bill so that they could be privatised more easily.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the fight for the steel industry in Scotland is concerned with saving Ravenscraig, a Motherwell steel plant, not Ravensglass, a Cumbrian village, which is what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seemed to believe when we met him? Is she aware that as part of the fight Sir Kenneth Alexander has been nominated for the board of directors of British Steel? Although she cannot endorse any particular candidate, will she testify to his fitness as a candidate, as a man of great learning, industrial experience and integrity?

I regret that I do not know the gentleman and it would be quite wrong of me to endorse one candidate because I was asked to do so. That is a matter for the shareholders of the company, as the hon. Gentleman realises and it is for those who put him forward to testify to all the things that the hon. Gentleman has enumerated.