To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning concessionary television licences for retirement pensioners living in sheltered housing.

Since the change in the regulations in May 1988, we have received deputations from four hon. Members, and received 373 letters, 191 of those from hon. Members, about aspects of the concessionary television licensing system. The nature of each representation is not separately recorded, but the main points raised were whether the scheme should be extended to ordinary housing, the treatment of new residents of schemes which no longer qualified and whether the circumstances of individual housing schemes fitted the new regulations.

Will the Minister look urgently into the case of 10 old-age pensioners in Leicester, five of whom live in Braunstone in my constituency? Their preserved right to a concessionary television licence has been lost entirely as a result of bureaucratic delays in the television licence office. Leicester city council was not informed or asked to produce a list of renewals until August 1988, four months after the cut-off date. Does he agree that it is cruel and wrong that those elderly people should lose that right? Will the Minister do his best to cut through the bureaucratic tangle which should never have existed?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me have details of the case, I will join him in writing to the national television licence records office to sort the matter out.

Will my hon. and learned Friend look into the interesting and anomalous case of the sheltered housing at Willey Flatts in Yarm in my constituency? It is an establishment of segregated and sheltered bungalows for which there is an extra charge because there is a warden service. In the past, the residents enjoyed a concessionary television licence because they were old-age pensioners. The national television licence records office wrote recently to say that in future the concession will not be available. Having realised that the bungalows are separate and have been so for 20 years, it is seeking to change the previous ruling. Will my hon. and learned Friend intervene in that completely ridiculous situation?

Once again, all that I can say is that while the interpretation of the regulations is not a matter for me, if I am provided with the full details and if I can be helpful, I shall try to do so.

Does the Minister understand that the arbitrary system under which most pensioners have to pay for a licence but some do not causes friction and resentment? Now that only seven in every 100 homes has a black and white set and as pensioners own most of those, will the Minister give them a Christmas present by exempting all black and white sets from the licence fee? If the Government could do away with the licence for 7 million dog owners, why cannot he do the same for the far fewer pensioners who own black and white television sets?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that since its introduction in 1969 the scheme has caused a wholly disproportionate amount of grief to every Government who have had to deal with it. We have tried to tidy up the arrangements so that the scheme genuinely benefits those whom it was intended to benefit. Later on the Order Paper we may reach directly some of the proposals to expand the scheme. The schemes have a cost which would have to be borne by the average licence payer, many of whom, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are not particularly well off and would not thank us for adding to their burden in order to benefit others.

I was one of the 191 Members who wrote to the Minister. Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that local authorities now understand the regulations? I am still getting questions from constituents about the scheme and, obviously, in some cases there are serious anomalies.

I repeat that a serious effort was made to clear out the anomalies in last year's regulations, but I am only too willing to look at any evidence from my hon. Friend that we have not succeeded in that brave endeavour.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in setting up the safer cities project.

Excellent progress has been made in setting up safer cities projects. Twelve are now operating and four more should be in place early in the new year. The multi-agency approach is the best way to reduce crime —and fear of crime. It encourages local authorities, voluntary bodies, local industry and concerned individuals to work in partnership in implementing imaginative measures, such as improving lighting in car parks and streets, and increasing home and office security.

I agree with everything that the Home Secretary said, but may I put to him one particular problem about the budgetary arrangments for the safer cities projects? For all the projects the budget is the same. Without disparaging Hartlepool, there is no comparison between it and Birmingham, yet both receive £250,000. Birmingham is 12 times the size. The budgets for the safer cities programmes should be related to the needs of the area. This is new money, not existing money. By definition, the bigger the area, the greater are the crime rates. That should be recognised in the budgets, particularly for places as large as Birmingham.

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that when the scheme was first launched it was on the basis that there would be a set sum for each project, so there is no question about it. Birmingham knew perfectly well how much it would cost and decided that it was right to go ahead on that budget. I must stress, because it is important, that Birmingham has received some extra funding this year. What is much more important is that it was never intended that the whole cost of crime prevention should be borne by this particular scheme. This is pump priming and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, for all the limits on the funds, these are excellent projects.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has today published a report on drug trafficking and related serious crime. Is he aware that some of the recommendations have a direct bearing on the safer cities initiatives? Would he care to comment on how drugs aspects might be further strengthened under the scheme?

We are indebted to the Select Committee for having produced such a useful report and we shall give a full reply in due course. It may be worth reminding my hon. Friend that in April 1990 we shall launch a new initiative which involves setting up schemes in nine city centres where there are particular drugs problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend will give us all possible support in that endeavour.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that while this year's total expenditure on safer cities projects nationwide is more than £4 million, the reduction in annual grants to local authorities is running at £20 billion? As a quarter of that could be used for exactly the initiatives that he has described—lighting and other safety initiatives —is it not a poor deal for the Government to take away 1,200 times as much as they have given?

The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. The object of the exercise is to have a multi-agency approach to crime prevention, which does not rely solely on the efforts of the local authorities. I might argue that if relying on local authorities were sufficient to crack the problems we would not have had to set up the safer city projects. The object of those projects is to have a multi-agency approach and draw in central Government agencies, local authorities, local industry, voluntary bodies and concerned individuals. I believe that that is the right way to go about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Justice on Torfaen borough council against B & Q concerning Sunday trading.

The judgment of the European Court indicates that the existence of the Sunday trading laws as such is not in breach of the treaty of Rome. It also indicates that the restrictive effect of the legislation on Community trade should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its underlying economic and social policy. The judgment regarded the question whether the effect of the legislation meets this requirement as a matter of fact to be determined by courts in this country. The Government are considering the implications of the judgment.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the ruling of the European Court of Justice on Sunday trading makes the law of this country a shambles? Does he recognise that every court and every local authority now has a free licence to make up its mind on this issue? Does he not regard that situation as wholly unsatisfactory? Notwithstanding the excellent efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to bring legislation on this matter to Parliament when he previously held office in the Home Office, such legislation is still needed. When will my hon. and learned Friend bring it forward?

I continue to regret that, in 1986, when the opportunity was accorded to the House to make alterations to what many believed to be an increasingly archaic piece of legislation, that opportunity was not taken. We are still looking at the judgment of the European Court, but on the face of it, it appears to ask British courts to make a difficult judgment. That judgment will not make the Shops Act 1950 any easier for the courts to interpret or, I suspect, for an increasing number of our people to accept.

Will the Minister welcome the initiative taken by my local authority, Torfaen council, in bringing B & Q before the European Court on the issue of Sunday trading? Will he condemn B & Q for openly flouting the law of the land? Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General give as much practical, moral and financial help as possible to local authorities, which have to bear the burden in this matter?

I must leave it to the people of Torfaen to judge whether it was a proper matter. All I can say is that the law is the law and its enforcement requires no commendation from me.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, now that the European Court has had its say, it is imperative that the law should be applied and enforced and that those people who are calling for breaches of the law and condoning and encouraging such breaches in their organisations should be proceeded against for the common law offence of incitement to commit a crime?

Traditionally the question whether to prosecute has been left to local authorities. It is not for me to intervene in that process. I repeat that, whether some hon. Members like it or not, the fact is that the restrictions imposed by the Shops Act 1950 seem outmoded to an increasing number of people. Down the years, an increasing number of local authorities, rightly or wrongly, have refused to enforce it. Parliament has left a vacuum by its repeated failure to address this matter. I continue to hope that it will be possible to find some sensible way forward.

When the Minister is considering the implications of Sunday trading, will he take the view that the same position must necessarily prevail throughout the country? Is there not a strong case to be made for a local option and for allowing local authorities to decide whether they wish the law in their area to be the same as in others?

Additional difficulties are certainly created when there are different prosecution arrangements, not least for traders who are only a short distance apart when some are left to trade freely on Sundays and others are not. For many years, a minority of authorities have decided to prosecute and others have not. I cannot help returning to this point: the problem is the continued attempt by the criminal law to enforce an outmoded view of what should or should not be sold on Sunday. That is the nub of it. One day, the House will have to address that issue.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, for his attempts to find a consensus on the way forward on the difficult issue of Sunday trading? Does he agree that while opinion in the House is so divided and while it is difficult to achieve a consensus, it would be wrong in principle to move forward to any legislation on the subject?

That is certainly the Government's position—one forced upon them by what happened in 1986. I have participated in debates on this matter for a number of years. I have yet to hear any hon. Member say that the Shops Act 1950 is right, although we may disagree about what should replace it. On that basis, the House will need to try before too much longer to reach a consensus, on which we can then make some progress.

The Minister of State has been palpably ambivalent about the enforcement of the law. May I ask him directly whether it is his wish or, indeed, his instruction that local authorities should enforce the law as it now stands?

The right hon. Gentleman knows only too well that, thank goodness, in this free society it is not for me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question in precisely the form in which it was put to me. It was put—[Interruption]

Order. The Minister cannot answer the question if he is not given the chance.

It is not my fault if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) chooses to formulate his question in a way that is not acceptable to those sitting alongside him. He asked whether I would instruct prosecution authorities to prosecute. It is not the function of a Home Office Minister in a free society to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now exist in England and Wales.

At the end of September 1989 there were estimated to be about 75,300 residential neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales. That is almost 16,000 more than the number recorded 12 months ago.

That is good news. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the keys to the success of neighbourhood watch schemes is awareness by the criminal element in the areas covered that a scheme is in operation? Will he therefore take this opportunity to name and condemn those local authorities which still forbid neighbourhood watch signs on their streets?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great shame when local authorities do not co-operate with local communities to help neighbourhood watch schemes. I should be happy if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would join me in writing a letter to councils such as Cleveland and Haringey asking them to change their policy.

Given the appalling levels of crime, which have risen steadily every year since the Conservative party has been in office, we wholeheartedly endorse the citizens' response to joining neighbourhood watch campaigns. We must ask, however, that those neighbourhood watch schemes do not just go on and on. They depend upon volunteers, but they must be managed. The police and local authorities are asking for some kind of structure to make them more effective. If the Minister wants a joint letter to local authorities to encourage local councils to participate, he will get it from Labour Members, but if he can get local authorities to collaborate on this, will he ask them about the Shops Act as well?

If the hon. Gentleman will come with me to a Labour-controlled borough such as Islington to see the Highbury Quadrant neighbourhood watch scheme, which includes about 800 households—largely council houses, but some in private ownership—he will find that that scheme, like many others in inner cities, is getting along extremely well with a bit of help and encouragement from the police, and is helping with crime prevention and with rebuilding the community, through concern for environmental and other issues.

The whole House supports the admirable development of neighbourhood watch schemes which do not offend civil liberties, but will my right hon. and hon. Friends pay attention to what might be described as the recent development of neighbourhood spying schemes in which a few chief constables have decided to offer the public freephones so that friends, neighbours and relations can report each other anonymously? That has not been authorised by Parliament and it is thoroughly offensive—more reminiscent of the KGB, the Cheka and the Gestapo than of British justice.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I will certainly look into that in response to my hon. Friend's important question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met Lord Denning to discuss the case of the Birmingham Six.

I have not met Lord Denning to discuss this case.

In the event of the current investigation of police officers of the West Midlands force who were also involved in the investigations of the Birmingham Six finding those officers guilty of misconduct, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will again look into the case of the Birmingham Six?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter was investigated by the Devon and Cornwall police some years ago, leading to a reference to the Court of Appeal by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary. The case was looked at by the Court of Appeal over a very long period and the confessions were examined with great care. I am always ready to consider whether there is new evidence in a case or any consideration of substance that was not looked into by the trial court, but I see no circumstances now that would warrant my intervention in the Birmingham case.

Is not the often heard argument that, because there was a patent miscarriage of justice at one place at one time with one police force, that is evidence that there was another miscarriage of justice at another time and place with a different police force, wholly insane?

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right; there is certainly no direct link between the Guildford case and the Birmingham case.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the House Library contains reference to 157 answers on the Guildford case like the one that he has just given, that this matter is being examined by the European Parliament and the American Senate, and that the Prime Minister of the Republic and the primate in the North have raised it? Is he aware that in the light of what emerged in the Guildord case there is no doubt that there is new evidence now because at the time of the Birmingham Six appeal it had not been established that the police had lied? Now that that has been established that is the new evidence justifying a fresh examination.

That is the most ridiculous proposition that I have ever heard. The fact that there was misconduct in one case in one part of the country is hardly evidence of misconduct in another case in an entirely different part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than to talk such nonsense.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average processing time for a non-urgent passport application at the London passport office; and what was the comparable period six months ago.

The London passport office is processing straightforward non-urgent applications in a maximum of nine working days, compared with 32 working days six months ago.

I am sure that the holiday-making constituents of most hon. Members will be encouraged by that response, but is there not a danger of backsliding in the run-up to the next holiday season? What steps have been taken to ensure adequate staffing?

We are determined to avoid the difficulties that we had last year and we have increased computer capacity at Glasgow and Liverpool. We have taken on 220 additional permanent staff and the Belfast office is being expanded. Work will be transferred between offices next summer to ensure a balanced load between them.

How can the public be confident that the Minister's statement will not result in the chaos that we have had in recent years? Growth figures have been predictable and now we understand that the computer has gone wrong. Will the Minister implement the proposals in the Coopers and Lybrand report? Will he give us an assurance that at Easter, next summer and at future peak periods we will not have the mess and chaos that we have experienced in recent years?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we have taken the steps that I have described. We have the situation very much in mind and have every reason Ito believe that the performance of the passport department will be excellent next year—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) should stop shouting across the Chamber. If he looks at the Order Paper he will see that it contains another question on the Birmingham Six.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps are proposed, in the light of recent incidents in Greater Manchester and elsewhere, to impose tighter controls on gun clubs.

Subject to the advice given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary by the firearms consultative committee, he proposes to withhold his approval from clubs that operate day or temporary membership schemes. Probationary members would also have to be sponsored by two existing members of the club, both of whom hold firearms certificates. They would have to be constantly supervised while on the range and would need to receive instruction in the safe handling of firearms. The number of probationary members of a club would not be permitted to exceed the number of full members.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that while the public are justifiably concerned about the use of firearms, gun clubs are valuable places in which this reasonable sport can be conducted with safety? I am glad that he agrees that gun clubs must be circumspect about the credentials of probationary members. Does he accept that when considering the granting of a firearms certificate for probationary members there is no substitute for an in-depth investigation by the police and that the relevant chief constable should pronounce himself satisfied?

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. Anyone seeking a firearms certificate will be subject to a full police investigation and there is most definitely no question of a certificate being granted simply because a person is a club member.

In view of the great damage to wild life will the Minister consider further extending restrictions on the use of air pistols and air rifles?

I do not think that there is any need to change the law on this subject but if the hon. Gentleman has any reasons to suggest that that should be done, I shall be glad to hear them.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that all gun clubs need the Home Secretary's approval?

Virtually all gun clubs need approval. The only ones that do not are those in which all the members already hold a certificate. In most cases those certificates will stipulate that the people holding them can shoot only on a range issued with a safety certificate and, therefore, almost invariably clubs will decide that they need one.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has copies of the alleged confessions of the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

Yes, Sir. Copies of the confession statements made by those convicted of the Birmingham public house bombings were provided to the Home Office as part of the inquiry into the case carried out by the Devon and Cornwall police in 1987.

Does the Minister accept that those confessions were obtained after beatings of the six prisoners concerned and that serious inquiries are now going on into the conduct of the West Midlands police who obtained those confessions in the first place? Does he agree that six men have been wrongfully imprisoned for 15 years for crimes that they did not commit, that they were abominably treated at the beginning, and that the important thing is for him to take the simple decision to refer the whole case back to the Court of Appeal so that the men's innocence can be declared and at last they can be set free?

All these matters have been before the courts on more than one occasion. They have been fully investigated and they are being further examined now. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends comes forward with new evidence, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider it again. Until that time, I try to remember as much as I can—care though I do for the quality of justice and ensuring that no one is wrongfully imprisoned—the Birmingham 21 who were murdered and the Birmingham 162 who were injured.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about remembering the devastation in Birmingham that was caused by the atrocious bombing. Will he accept that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are thoroughly fed up with sniping attacks on the police? We have the best police force in the world, and it is about time that somebody said so.

It is entirely right that if any policeman or woman does anything wrong, an investigation should take place and the individual should be brought to justice. On the other hand, I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that, as my hon. Friend says, we owe a great deal to the police who conduct themselves in difficult circumstances and often face violent attacks.

However one describes them, surely the Minister will agree that there are new factors that are common to both the Guildford case and the Birmingham case, and that many in this country and elsewhere believe that these factors are a good reason for the Home Secretary again to consider the matter. Does the Minister accept that there are compelling reasons to question the validity and the justice of the original trial verdicts?

I can give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman, who I know cares passionately about these matters—I respect that care—that if he writes to us and presents new evidence, we shall consider it most carefully. I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to come forward with their evidence. I only wish that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is not in his place, but who persistently tells the House that he knows the names of the people who really carried out the bombing, would write to my right hon. and learned Friend and give us the names.

I am most obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.

Does my hon. Friend accept that I was the first elected official to visit the scene of the Birmingham pub bombing? I was there within an hour of that dreadful experience having taken place. No one is soft upon this dreadful offence, but the Birmingham people are concerned with justice, not with vengeance. If it is true that four members of the serious crimes squad were involved—we all accept that two trials were held, one in the Court of Appeal and one at the Crown court—would it not be good if the assistant chief constable of the West Yorkshire police, who is involved with the serious crimes squad, at least investigated the four to clear up the problem? Justice is what this place is about, and justice is what everybody should be satisfied we have had.

My hon. Friend speaks with great power about the important balance between justice and retribution, and justice for those who might be wrongfully convicted. I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is nothing to prevent Mr. Shaw, the assistant chief constable of the West Yorkshire force, from conducting an investigation with the oversight of the Police Complaints Authority. There is nothing to prevent him from examining any matter of an earlier date if he has grounds for suspicion.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce free television licences for all pensioners and disabled; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The cost of so doing for all pensioners would be £400 million, and would increase the price of the licence fee for the rest of us to over £100. Since many pensioners are not poor and most other television licence payers are not rich, that would not be equitable.

If the Government can find sweeteners for British Aerospace and are able to make handouts to their friends in the City, why cannot they find £400 million to ensure that pensioners on one side of the street who have to pay for their television licences are in the same position as those on the other side of the street who do not? Why should the Prime Minister have 13 television sets and not have to pay for a licence? She has one in every room. Even Boris has one free. Now that this place is televised, some pensioners are having to pay to watch the proceedings in the palace of varieties while some get it for nowt. Surely that is the utmost degradation. Why do the Government not make everyone equal in this respect?

Without being ungentlemanly, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was right to quote the example of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? He is suggesting that she should have an additional concession by having a free licence as a lady of pensionable age. That identifies precisely why he is advancing a bad idea. There are plenty of pensioners who are well off and do not require a state subsidy for their television licences. There are plenty of other non-pensioner, non-disabled licence payers who would resent, and rightly so, having to pay £100 instead of £66 to provide for a concession that is merely an electoral bribe for some and a fine for others.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that most reasonable people would say that there is no justification whatever in giving free television licences to every pensioner, including many who are extremely well off, while at the same time a large number of young families on limited incomes have to pay for a full and increased licence, which is hardly fair?

My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting that, notwithstanding the stridency of Opposition Members, when they come to formulate their policy proposals they do so with great care, simply saying that it is their

"intention to move towards a funding system which will permit"—

presumably an open-ended commitment that could well be ignored in any Parliament that so chose. Those are weasel words, but if any right hon. or hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench wished to toughen them up a bit and give a categorical assurance that would delight the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made regarding the privatisation of the police national computer and the passing of control of the police national computer into the hands of an executive agency.

The police national computer organisation is engaged in work to replace the existing computer with a new system-PNC2. This is planned to become operational by the end of 1990. I have not yet considered the longer-term role of the organisation. That will depend on a number of factors, including the programme of work on the provision of further information systems for the police. Plans for those systems are presently being developed.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the Police Federation is passionately opposed to the privatisation proposal on the ground that private security firms will now have access to information which they have historically been denied, destroying the relationship between the police and the public on confidentiality? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that programmes such as "Crimewatch" would no longer be able to carry the message that the police will keep confidential any information that they receive, which in effect will increase crime? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman hands over the police national computer to the executive agency, will he state unequivocally why?

Obviously, we want effective and efficient management and the best value for the taxpayer. We must consider all the options, including contracting out, executive agency status, or a combination of the two. I fully agree that two matter that we must consider are security and confidentiality, but executive agency status is not incompatible with the security that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Will the terminals to the computer be connected by fibre optics or through the general telephone lines? If it is the latter, how shall we ensure the security of the system?

I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about that. Proposals have not yet been put to me, but I shall study them anxiously when they are.

The Home Secretary seems to be telling the House that he will spend public money on improving the police computer before deciding whether it should be privatised. What benefits could possibly accrue to the detection or prevention of crime from privatising the police national computer? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that if it were privatised, confidentiality and security would be prejudiced? How on earth does the privatisation proposal assist us in the fight against crime?

I do not see the logic of the argument that executive agency status need necessarily prejudice security and confidentiality. I agree that we must look into all the relevant matters, but at the end of the day we want an efficient system which represents good value for money.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the Crminal Justice Act 1988 provisions banning the public carrying of knives.

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which makes it an offence to be in possession of a knife in a public place without good reason, came into force on 29 September 1988. In the remainder of 1988 in England and Wales, 150 people were prosecuted under this section, of whom 130 were found guilty.

Given the low number of prosecutions, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Act is working effectively? What was the number of prosecutions and convictions in Leicestershire during 1988? Is he aware of the great popularity of the legislation that bans stars and other martial arts weapons?

The figure for Leicestershire last year was only one, but provisional figures for this year show that the Act is increasingly being used. I expect it to be used even more as the police become more familiar with it and realise the ways open to them to use it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall depart for Strasbourg later today to attend the European Council.

When the right hon. Lady met her fellow Ministers this morning, did she discuss with the Secretary of State for Scotland his astonishing statement yesterday about homelessness in Scotland, when he said that there was no need for money to be included in the public expenditure statement for homelessness in Scotland because additional money was being made available for London and many of the homeless in London were young Scots? Would the right hon. Lady be prepared to spend Christmas in a cardboard box? Does she agree that the Secretary of State made an appalling statement, both about the position in London and that in Scotland?

My right hon. and learned Friend will answer the hon. Gentleman as he did very effectively with regard to Scotland. Many bed spaces in London are not used in the evening, especially those available for the homeless. People are sometimes sent to such places but do not receive any attention for their personal problems, which we think is necessary. The amount that is being spent on homelessness will continue to increase. In general, the number of houses has risen. The amount available to the Housing Corporation over the next two years will rise from about £817 million to about £1,500 million.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the overwhelming support on both sides of the House and in the country for the cause of the pre-1973 war widows. Will she review the Government's policy as a matter of urgency and place those deserving women, without exception, on a par with their post-1973 colleagues?

As my hon. Friend knows, most of the advances in war widows' pensions—whether on tax matters or the additional amounts given from the age of 65, again at 70 and again at 80—have been made by Conservative Governments. It is an excellent record that we are anxious to keep. We are therefore considering the matter further and hope to be in position to make a further statement before Christmas.

When the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry said on Monday that the terms of the Rover deal were hidden to avoid severely damaging our relations with the European Community, what did he mean?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has answered to the House. I firmly agree with the view that the sale of Rover to British Aerospace was greatly in the interests of the British taxpayer, who had already lost about £3 billion, with another £1·6 billion at risk. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we were in danger of losing the deal. It was an extremely good deal for the British taxpayer and it remains an extremely good deal.

As that answer bears not the slightest relationship to the question that the Prime Minister was asked, let me return to the statement made by the permanent secretary to a Committee of the House this week. When he spoke of severe damage to our relations with the European Community, was he not saying in terms that to have revealed the truth would have done so much damage that the Government entered into a calculated deception, and is that view not reinforced by today's revelation that the Government assessed the consequences of such a deception? If there was no deception, why did Lord Young circulate colleagues asking what the price of deception would be?

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of letters which I understand are now being discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry answered questions on the other matters in the House, and answered them satisfactorily.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, although she may not accept that interpretation, Parliament, the country and the European Community do? That is why she will go to Strasbourg with a tarnished reputation.

Parliament, the European Community and, above all, the country, know full well that this was an excellent deal for the British taxpayer, as well as for all who work at Rover and who previously worked at British Leyland. It was good for both workers and taxpayers to privatise both the lorry and the car sectors. Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not like that; he would much prefer the British taxpayer to have to pay over and over again, as long as the thing stayed nationalised—and that was bad.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by the EEC Transport Ministers to deregulate air fares is a triumph for British diplomacy, and that it is the kind of concrete measure to help ordinary citizens that she called for at Bruges? Will she take it from me that the majority of the British people wish her well on her way to the Strasbourg summit, and would like to hear more in the same vein?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Britain has been pressing very hard to secure cheaper air fares in Europe: we were paying far more per mile to go there than we have ever paid to go to the United States. The agreement is indeed a triumph for British diplomacy, and also a triumph for our kind of Europe. We believe in a much freer and more open Europe, which will break down trade barriers and be of great benefit to the people of Britain. [Interruption.]

Order. There is a great deal of noise today.

Given the agenda of the Strasbourg summit, will the Prime Minister reflct on some realities on her way there—for instance, the fact that West Germany's interest rate is 5 per cent., Holland's 6 per cent., Denmark's 7 per cent. and Belgium's and France's 9 per cent., while the United Kingdom's is 15 per cent? Moreover, the inflation rates of all those countries are less than half that of the United Kingdom. Given her attitude to the European monetary system, why does the Prime Minister think that all those countries are out of step?

Let me point out—citing some of the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that Belgium's unemployment rate is 10 per cent., Denmark's and Spain's is 16·8 per cent., France's 10 per cent., Ireland's 17·3 per cent., Italy's 10·7 per cent. and the United Kingdom's 6 per cent.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

As my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to express her views on the European social charter this weekend in Strasbourg, will she make it plain that—far from being some document of woolly principles—the charter contains some 43 action points, including 17 directives to the House to change the law? According to an independent study by Liverpool university, one of those directives is in danger of causing the loss of no fewer than half a million jobs in this country.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the social charter was accompanied by an action programme embodying 43 proposals and 17 directives, most of which were entirely inappropriate for the Commission. If any action is to be taken, it should be a matter for national Parliaments.

Furthermore, the social charter would cause a great increase in unemployment in this country—and, I believe, in others—and would probably mean a fortress Europe in the end. It is utterly right that the House rejected it decisively in a vote, and we shall do the same at Strasbourg.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that millions of people in this country have been losers as a result of her Government's policies during the last 10 years and that increasingly millions of people recognise that they will lose even more next April when the poll tax is introduced, because of its basic unfairness and its failure to take into account ability to pay? Will she do something urgently to rectify that, or does she intend to allow the losers to ensure that she and her party lose the next general election?

The overwhelming majority of people in this country have been gainers during the lifetime of this Government. Their standard of living is higher than they have ever known before. The standard of social services is also higher than they have ever known before.

As for the community charge, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman believes that people should bear a fair share of the cost of local authority public expenditure. In England, only 25 per cent. of local authority expenditure is borne by the community charge. About 9 million or 10 million people will get a community charge rebate, at a cost of £2·5 billion to £3 billion, every penny piece of which will be paid by the taxpayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish people to get out of paying their legitimate dues to the local authority.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December 1988.

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

Given the economic revival of the north-west of England as a result of the policies of my right hon. Friend and her Government, would it not be a really good advertisement for Britain if Manchester were to host the 1996 Olympic games? If my right hon. Friend agrees with me, will she join me in supporting the campaign to achieve the objective?

I agree entirely that to hold the 1996 Olympic games in Manchester would be a very good way of celebrating the revival of the north-west under this Government. I wish the Manchester Olympic bid team well. I wrote on, I believe, 10 November to the International Olympic committee supporting Manchester's claim for the Olympic games in 1996 to be held in Manchester.

Now that Chancellor Kohl has provided a welcome respite from the headlong rush into European union—[Interruption.]

Order.

—does not the Prime Minister agree that it would make very good sense for Britain now to organise a serious study of the constitutional and economic consequences of economic and monetary union—a study not confined to the governors of the European central banks—and at the same time to ensure that placed at the very top of the European agenda is the future relationship between the European Communities and the emerging independent and democratic countries of eastern Europe? [Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the House debated these matters it took precisely the same view as that which he has expressed so clearly on Delors stages 2 and 3: that it was not right to take away from the House of Commons fundamental rights that are central to our duties. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already produced an alternative paper on monetary union which will be considered along with the Delors paper. It goes just a little beyond stage 1, but it would not require any central bank or any common currency. However, it would result in more consistent monetary policies.

As for the relationship between the Community and eastern European countries, we shall be considering that matter at Strasbourg. We put a paper to the Commission, following questions that I raised at the Paris summit just a few days ago, about the varying kinds of relationships that we could have with eastern European countries. The matter will, therefore, be discussed at the Strasbourg meeting, and I shall duly report upon it to the House on my return.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that all right hon. and hon. Members welcome the destruction of the Berlin wall? Does she agree with me that remnants of the wall ought to be kept standing to remind us, and those who follow us, that the wall was built by Socialists, not to keep people out but to keep them in?

My hon. Friend makes his point effectively in his own inimitable way. After 40 years of that sort of system, people in eastern Europe are making their views very clear indeed. Socialism does not work and they want to have no more of it.