As the next 11 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, I propose to deal with them as a single group.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how plans are progressing for the international drug demand reduction conference in London from 9 to 11 April.

Plans for the summit are well advanced. It will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the presence of the President of Colombia and the Secretary General of the United Nations. On the second day, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal has graciously consented to address the summit. A paper giving details of the outline programme is in the Library.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information, but since, after studying that paper, there is concern that the conference may be taken off the rails—to follow the more newsworthy track of studying the cocaine menace—will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure me that it will concentrate strictly, as many hon. Members believe it should, on the important issue of demand reduction?

I assure my hon. Friend that great concentration will be placed on the problem of demand reduction, but it is difficult to see how one can discuss demand reduction except in the context of the large numbers of drugs coming into the country, particularly cocaine.

Is the Home Secretary aware that Opposition Members are pleased that he did his homework in preparation for the conference by going to the United States and studying the problem there? Will he still have time to visit European countries such as Holland. France and Germany, whose experience may be more similar to ours than that of the United States? When he was in the United States, did he have time to talk about the fundamentals, not the superficial elements, of demand reduction? As drugs are rooted in poverty, bad education and underprivilege of every kind, when will the Government do something about them?

The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that when living standards were much lower than they are today there was less of a drugs problem. I shall not have an opportunity to visit the European countries that he mentioned, but it is right to consider the experience of others and the position in different parts of our country. That is one reason for the new drugs initiative that we shall launch at the beginning of April.

As Colombia is bearing the brunt of the war against the odious drug barons, is not it appropriate that President Barco will play such a significant part in the conference? What is our country doing to help Colombia in its fight, and what more should it do?

I am glad to say that we give considerable help to that brave country and to its brave president. Recently, we gave Colombia £4 million of aid. The Home Office has contributed communications equipment for the anti-narcotics agencies, motor bikes for drug enforcement teams and training equipment for the judicial authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to develop a remand centre in north Wales.

We have no plans to develop a remand centre in north Wales. The number of remand prisoners from that area is insufficient to justify separate remand facilities.

The Minister's reply is extremely disappointing. We have been pressing for a number of years for remand facilities in north Wales. The majority of its remand prisoners are sent to Risley, which has been the subject of serious concern in recent years. It also involves long travelling times for solicitors and prisoners' families. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the matter and consult his colleagues in the Welsh Office to ascertain whether some provision can be made—even if it is not a full-blown remand centre—to meet the genuine concerns that have been expressed?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is clearly unsatisfactory that people should have to travel long distances. In one sense, I suppose that it is good that not too many people from the hon. Gentleman's area are remanded in custody, as that suggests a lower level of criminality than in some other parts of the country. The average remand population from north Wales is about 80 which, unfortunately, does not make a separate establishment viable. That is the nub of the problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the provision for religious broadcasting contained in the Broadcasting Bill.

I recently had meetings with a number of groups. The Broadcasting Bill is an improvement in significant respects on present legislation relating to religious broadcasting. For instance, the present blanket prohibition of religious sponsorship and advertising will be lifted, and the Bill will allow Christian and other religious groups for the first time to own radio stations. I have undertaken to consider further whether there should be a specific guarantee for religious programming on Channel 3 and an exceptional discretion to allow religious groups to own local and non-direct broadcasting by satellite TV services. A further announcement will be made in due course.

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful response. I know from the discussions that he has held that the hon. and learned Gentleman met many of the complaints put to him. Clause 83 of the Broadcasting Bill could radically curtail Christian broadcasting. Will the Minister consider introducing an amendment to clarify formally a matter that is causing much unrest, and about which the hon. and learned Gentleman had received many representations?

I do not accept that there are restrictions on Christian broadcasting beyond those relating to editorialising which have always existed as part of the normal consumer protection arrangements covering British broadcasting. On the contrary, as I said in my original answer, the Broadcasting Bill makes possible an expansion in Christian broadcasting—which may go further, depending on the outcome of current discussions.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of how gratified Church and Christian groups, many of which have made representations to me and to other right hon. and hon. Members, are about the very positive way in which the Government are considering developing the Bill in the two directions he outlined? I and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) hope that my hon. and learned Friend will persist with his intended improvements and amendments; he will carry the whole House, the Christian community and the country at large with him as he does so.

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is playing a leading part in the discussions. I hope that we shall soon bring them to a successful conclusion.

We welcome the Minister's response to the all-party pressure and the pressure from a large variety of church bodies to require the new Channel 3 television station to carry religious programmes. Does he accept that the problem could have been avoided had the Government retained the public service broadcasting requirements for all new licence-holders, the better to ensure quality with quantity?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. However, I derived great assistance from the discussion in Committee on the matter in which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues played a full part. I hope that all who played a part in considering the Bill will feel that what emerges is useful and worth while. What stands to come out of the Bill is clearer definition and wider opportunities than have ever been available. Whether we choose to talk about a public service umbrella or whatever, there will be an expansion of responsible Christian broadcasting which I think most people would like to see.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his proposals to place the same duty of care on local authorities in respect of children in care as he proposes to place on parents for the crimes committed by their children.

We have had no responses so far, but I expect any responses to be 100 per cent. in favour of the excellent proposals contained in my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper, which has received such a warm welcome.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and welcome the proposals, particularly as there have been instances in my constituency where young people in care have committed offences. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the victims of offences committed by young people will be affected by the proposals?

The present position is that the victim of an offence by a young person in the care of the local authority is denied any recompense via compensation from the court. We intend to put that right, as I am sure the whole House would want us to do on European Victims Day.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities have a duty to ensure that children in their care do not commit offences repeatedly? Is not it wrong for some local authorities to allow children to commit up to 30 or 40 offences while they are supposedly in their care?

I think that I can guess the local authorities to which my hon. Friend refers. One or two local authorities, in the past at least, have failed to exercise proper care over the juveniles remitted to them by the courts. That is something which the Department of Health's excellent social services inspectorate is working hard to put right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the procedures governing the release from prison of convicted killers.

I am carefully considering recommendations made last autumn by the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment to change the release arrangements for life sentence prisoners.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is somewhat unsatisfactory that, in the 25 years to 1987, 51 persons in England and Wales were killed by people who had previously been convicted of homicide? Against that background, when he considers the House of Lords Select Committee report, will he bear in mind, first, that more openness in the review procedure may produce more confidence and, secondly, the assessment procedure which is at the heart of whether a convicted murderer is released?

I have discussed that with members of the House of Lords Select Committee. Cases pending before the European Court relate to the machinery that should be in place to decide on the release of people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. We should not make a decision on this until we have heard the result of those cases before the European Court. I take my hon. Friend's point about openness. The difficulty is that the Select Committee says that decisions should be taken out of the hands of Ministers and given to an independent judicial tribunal; but could such a tribunal assess the risk any better than a parole board? Whoever assesses the risk has an appallingly difficult job.

The Government have accepted that Armley, in Leeds, is the most overcrowded prison in Britain. It contains convicted prisoners and unconvicted young people on remand. Is the Home Secretary aware that this week the prison staff are in industrial dispute with his Department, and that the fresh start proposals have ground to a halt as a result of overcrowding? What steps will he take to alleviate the problem, and will we be offered any hope in the short term, rather than having to wait for long-term and medium-term solutions?

I cannot see for the life of me what that has to do with question No. 5. As a matter of interest, however, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the prison department is trying to resolve the dispute.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the campaign to obtain parole for Myra Hindley? In view of the terrible crimes committed by Hindley and Brady, may we have an assurance that such people will never be allowed out of prison during their lifetimes?

A formal review of Myra Hindley's case will begin in 1990, in accordance with the announcement made at the time of the previous review five years ago. It does not follow that the board will recommend release, or that I would accept such a recommendation if one were made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will again reconsider the proposal to build a new prison in Fazakerley, Liverpool, bordering the Fazakerley hospital.

I am afraid that I see no grounds for reconsidering the proposed scheme. Contracts have now been exchanged for the purchase of the site, and we shall shortly be approaching the Department of the Environment for a local public inquiry to be set up into the proposed scheme so that all relevant points of view might be aired and considered.

That is a very disappointing answer. According to a written reply from the Minister, his Department considered 40 other sites for the new prison in the past two years. Why did the Department decide on a site immediately next to a hospital, in an area surrounded by housing? The city council, the local health authority, the parish council, local people and just about everyone else oppose the proposal. Why are the Government persisting with it when many other sites in the area and the surrounding districts could be used instead? Do the Government consider that we in Liverpool are a special type, and that we should become the prison centre of the north-west? We already have prisons there; why must we have another almost next door to an existing prison?

The two most recent questions from Opposition Members about prisons reveal the Home Office's difficulties. On the one hand, complaints are made about old and overcrowded prisons; on the other, complaints are made when we propose to build a new one. The hon. Gentleman asks why the prison cannot be built somewhere else, but I dare say that others would object to that.

The Minister is misleading the House to some extent. My hon. Friend did not say—[Interruption.]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not alleging that the Minister is misleading the House deliberately.

He is doing so inadvertently, however, by suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) opposes what we all recognise as the urgent need for more prisons to be developed and built. His point was that the community that he represents as a Member of Parliament, which includes a large housing estate, renders the site inappropriate for building a prison. Should not the Minister make a decision about the problem in view of the strong feelings throughout Liverpool—not merely in my hon. Friend's constituency?

We cannot reject every site that is available for a new prison because people do not want it there. People are fully entitled to object to a prison being sited in their community. We are providing for a local public inquiry at which the wheat can be separated from the chaff and the legitimate arguments from the illegitimate. We shall be bound by the decision that is reached. What could be fairer than that?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to approve the arrangements for the support given to the victims of crime.

I have today published a victims charter, which sets out for the first time how victims of crime should be treated. It covers, among other things, keeping them informed of inquiries and court proceedings, helping them to secure compensation and how they are treated at court. The charter also raises some wider questions about giving victims a voice in criminal proceedings.

Society has long demanded that greater prominence should be given to the interests of the victims of crime. I am sure that the whole country will warmly welcome the publication of a victims charter. On this day—European Victims Day—we lead Europe in the arrangements for looking after the victims of crime. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need to make our criminal justice system more victim friendly? Should not we give more consideration to the way in which vulnerable victims are cross-examined in court, as well as to keeping them informed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not seem to pay as much attention to the victims of crime as do Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Order. That was a rather long supplementary question. Perhaps we may have a briefer answer.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for the victims charter. He is right to point out that the British scheme is probably the most generous in existence. We pay far more in compensation to victims than is paid in Germany or in France. It is absolutely right that the Government should spell out their commitment to improving the lot of victims, that we should make absolutely plain what are victims' rights and that we should point out the good practice that should be observed by each part of our criminal justice system.

I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that additional staff will be appointed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. How quickly will staff be recruited and appointed? Will more money be provided for the procurement of the new technology that is desperately needed and was recommended as far back as 1982? Will the Home Secretary advertise the scheme, given that only about 25 per cent. of the victims of violent crime and only a very small number of sexually abused children apply for compensation?

One virtue of producing such a document is to draw victims' attention to their rights. That meets the hon. Lady's latter points. We have already begun to install computers in the Glasgow office. That meets the hon. Lady's earlier point. Staff will be recruited in April and May, so they should be in place before very long. However, first we must provide the necessary accommodation for them. It is a big increase—20 to 25 per cent. more than the existing staffing level.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs will be delighted with his announcement today? Replying to a Select Committee report and accepting all the principal recommendations within two weeks must be a record. The United Kingdom now has the finest method anywhere in the western democracies of looking after the interests of victims, but what does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to do to ensure that the statutory agencies monitor the implementation of the victim support proposals that he has announced today?

We shall, of course, do all that we possibly can to impress upon the statutory agencies the necessity to observe the high standards laid down in the victims charter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We saw the wisdom of the recommendations in the Select Committee report. That is why we accepted them without delay and are able to tell the House today that they will soon be implemented.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that despite today's announcement the victims of crime who in 1989 were disqualified from receiving compensation by the Government's change in regulations are still not eligible for the assistance that the Government provide and therefore a substantial number of victims are disqualified from his scheme?

I think that everyone would agree that it is important to concentrate our energies on those victims of crime who have suffered the most. Our scheme remains the most generous in the world.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept what I know will be the grateful pleasure of the people who run the Medway victim support scheme in my constituency, the second such group to be set up in this country? Does he agree that the victims charter will provide most valuable support for many voluntary organisations which have sought to bring a personal touch into caring for victims of crime?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. The comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) were rather churlish in view of the fact that this morning the victims charter received the warmest possible reception from the chairman of Victims Support, Helen Reeves. I applaud the work of Victims Support up and down the country and I am glad that such schemes receive ever more support from the Home Office.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his consideration of the new evidence in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings.

I have not yet completed my consideration of the further material which has been presented to me by a solicitor acting on behalf of the six men convicted of the Birmingham public house bombings. I will decide as soon as possible whether it justifies any intervention on my part.

As the Home Secretary is aware, some of the confessions that formed the major part of the case for the conviction of the Birmingham pub bombers were taken by the West Midlands serious crime squad. That group has since been disbanded because it was found to have been forging confessions. Is not that enough to warrant reopening an inquiry into the case?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is my job to consider whether there is any new evidence or consideration of substance that may cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, and I shall carry out that duty. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an inquiry into the West Midlands serious crime squad is being carried out by the West Yorkshire police. Although their inquiry is concentrated on matters which have occurred since 1986, if they wish to take their inquiries further back in time because of matters that come to their notice, I am absolutely sure that they will do so.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people are rather tired of the concerted campaign to prove that those convicted criminals are innocent and to make people forget the nature of the crime that they committed?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that it is right for me to comment because I have a difficult duty to carry out. My hon. Friend will realise that I will carry it out.

Does not the length of time that the Guildford Four wrongly spent in prison haunt the Home Secretary as he continues to dither around finding one excuse after another for prevarication while evidence showing that the Birmingham Six were innocent builds up? How many more months, if not years, will they have to spend in gaol, wrongly, like the Guildford Four?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks were entirely uncalled for. He ignored entirely that Devon and Cornwall police have already carried out a detailed investigation into the matter; he ignored entirely that as a result of that investigation the case was taken to the Court of Appeal; and he ignored entirely that the Court of Appeal carried out the most exhaustive inquiry into the confessions made by the Six and into the forensic evidence.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the Taylor report, he will introduce legislation as soon as possible to create new public order offences at sports grounds; and if he will make a statement.

We are looking positively and quickly at the report's recommendations for new offences.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, as the Taylor report indicated, existing legislation is insufficient to deal with trouble and hooliganism at sporting events? Will he therefore support the introduction of three new offences to deal with, first, the throwing of missiles, secondly, the chanting of obscene and racist abuse, and thirdly, the invasion of pitches without good reason? Are not those reforms particularly important in view of the Government's second thoughts on the ID card scheme?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement, but before a final decision is made we need to discuss the recommendations of the report with the police and the Crown prosecution service to ensure that they are enforceable and that they add effectively to the sanctions already available.

Notwithstanding that response, is the Minister aware that there is concern that the noises coming from the Government on the Taylor report have been almost entirely limited to the question of all-seater stadiums? When will the Minister tell the country what specific action the Government intend to take in response to Taylor? Why is the Minister so slow off the mark in responding to this urgent matter?

The hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken. We were so quick off the mark that he obviously missed it. We accepted all the safety recommendations in the Taylor report and we are considering speedily and carefully the three recommendations for criminal legislation, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

When my hon. Friend considers the proposals for new legislation, will he bear in mind that many sporting events in this country take place not at sports grounds but throughout the countryside? At the moment, people innocently pursuing their lawful pastimes are inadequately protected from those who seek to disrupt them. Will my hon. Friend please bear that strongly in mind when considering new legislation?

I will bear those points very much in mind. As my hon. Friend said, it is necessary to consider the recommendations very carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the experiment in tagging in Nottingham.

The trial of electronic monitoring in Nottingham has run its full course and ended, as planned, on time. The results will be fully evaluated together with results from the other two trial areas, where the experiments continue.

Will the Minister bear in mind the experience of Mr. Richard Hart, who lives in Nottingham and who was the first person in Britain to be tagged? His tag apparently indicated that he was absconding. The police went to his home, broke in and found him in bed with his wife, who was particularly upset. He was at home all the time. Before he went back to prison, his tag malfunctioned 15 times. Because he was unable to leave the house, the Departments of Social Security and of Employment said that he was not available for work, so he got no benefit. Does the Minister agree with the National Association of Probation Officers that the tagging scheme has been a fiasco and should not be extended elsewhere?

Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He does not know what has been going on in his own back yard in Nottingham. We have seen in Nottingham a successful experiment which has run its full course and which shows how precise electronic monitoring is in revealing when there has been even the smallest breach of conditions. The hon. Gentleman talked about the National Association of Probation Officers. Does he get up and criticise the association every time a probation officer fails to control or get back to a bail hostel someone who should have been back on time? Of course he does not. The tagging scheme is in operation in 21 states in the United States of America where it is widely welcome and is a great success.

As the Nottingham scheme is one of three in operation, is not it true that electronic tagging has shown that it effectively picks up violations as soon as they occur, which the ordinary system does not do? Has my hon. Friend yet been able to form a view about the even newer development of tracking tagging?

My hon. and learned Friend is right in the first part of his question. Indeed, tracking tagging is full of possibilities for future use. Any right hon. or hon. Member who doubts the efficacy of electronic monitoring should talk to the people who have been subject successfully to electronic monitoring rather than being on remand in prison. Electronic tagging has led in some cases to people getting lesser, non-custodial sentences than they might otherwise have received.

If tagging in Nottingham has been such a great success, why did the clerk to the Nottingham justices say on behalf of the magistrates that it had been a complete failure? Now that the Minister of State has had his moment of publicity, should not he drop the whole daft idea?

First, the right hon. Gentleman is reporting alleged remarks by the clerk from the Nottingham justices which the clerk certainly did not make. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman characteristically has not applied his mind to how to deal with offenders on remand or being punished in the community in ways other than the traditional way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has thought seriously about criminal justice issues for a decade. He is politically and intellectually out to lunch on such issues.

If the Minister is prepared to announce today his complete conviction in the efficacy of the scheme, why has he bothered with experimentation?

We have not drawn our conclusions to a satisfactory end because we have three experiments. The hon. Gentleman is highly intelligent. He knows that when experiments are conducted it is necessary to wait until they are over before they are evaluated.

Does the Minister agree that any failures are failures of the defendants rather than the system? Is not the advantage of the system that the authorities know immediately the bail condition is broken? Is not it significantly cheaper to have tagging than to keep defendants expensively in prison?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows, as I know, that unfortunately when people who are remanded on bail go into the community, they often breach their conditions, but we hear nothing about that from the Opposition.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 304, concerning DS Morton.

No, Sir. The answers that I gave on 25 January and 1 February referred only to those officers who conducted interviews with those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. I stated that specifically in my original reply.

Why is the Minister hiding from the truth? This is the third time he has been questioned on the matter. Sergeant Brian Morton was expelled from the police force and gaoled because he beat up a prisoner to try to extract a confession. The reality is that he was in Queen's road police station in Birmingham during the whole time that the Birmingham Six were being brutally beaten up to extort confessions from them. Why does not the Minister face that and tell us the truth?

I said in an earlier written answer that Detective Sergeant Morton had been in prison for an offence. I said in the latter answer, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that Detective Sergeant Morton had nothing to do with the interviews of the Birmingham Six. He photographed one of them—Hill—at one point, but many officers had jobs at the periphery of the investigation, in which they were not involved. Morton was one of them and unless the hon. Gentleman has evidence otherwise it is deeply irresponsible to imply that Detective Sergeant Morton had such involvement.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

This morning 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, including one with the German Defence Minister and one with the National Pensioners Convention.

Does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing anger and dismay in Scotland at the way in which the Scottish steel industry is being run down by British Steel? Does she accept that, on the ground of competition alone, the time is right for British Steel's monopoly to be ended and for an independent steel industry to be established, based in Scotland? Would not that best serve the interests of competition and of the Scottish steel industry? Has not the Secretary of State for Scotland already suggested that that may be a course to be considered? My party has been advocating it for the past two or three years and it has growing support within Scotland.

The best guarantee of a successful steel industry has been privatisation. Before it was privatised, it was losing about £3 million a day; it is now making more than £500 million profit a year. On Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman knows that the British Steel prospectus stated that, subject to market conditions, there would continue to be a need for production at Ravenscraig until 1994. The chairman of British Steel has recently reaffirmed that. British Steel also gave the assurance that if it did not need Ravenscraig at some future date it would be prepared to sell it to another buyer. That assurance stands and I wish Ravenscraig well.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 February 1990.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the fourth quarter of last year exports rose by no less than 23 per cent. compared with the same period in 1988? Given the additional good news that Japanese investors are to create 400 new jobs in Barnsley and that German investors are to create 300 new jobs in Birmingham, is not there every reason to be optimistic about the prospects of British manufacturing?

I agree that British manufacturing industry can take justifiable pride in its success. Its production is at an all-time record this year and its investment is at an all-time record over and above the previous record set the year before. Growth has been good. Growth has been strongest in the highest technology industries. Production of electronic goods has increased by 50 per cent. since 1978, aerospace production has doubled and the computer industry has grown faster than that in any other country except Japan. That success has come about under Conservative economic policies. Japan and Germany know that and are anxious to put more investment here.

Is the Prime Minister ready to recognise that her high mortgage rate policies and her poll tax are bound to push up the rate of inflation?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, our top priority is to get inflation down. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the best way to do that in the longer term must be to make the price of money more expensive. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, I am very surprised.

The Prime Minister talks about combating inflation, but she is causing it. Is not it absolutely clear that because of high interest rates, high mortgage rates and high poll tax levels, the level of inflation now faced by the British people is mainly made in Downing street?

No. The right hon. Gentleman rightly grumbles about an inflation level of 7·7 per cent., but under the Labour Government it was 26·7 per cent.—an all-time high this century. Our record is far, far better than anything that the Labour party would ever produce.

This time last year, when inflation was at 7·8 per cent., the Prime Minister said that it was "proceeding towards zero". Now it is 7·7 per cent. Is that what she calls "proceeding"?

It is because we have growth that is faster than we had thought that it is taking longer to turn round. Nevertheless, we have a record number of home owners and a high level of mortgage payers, 99 per cent. of whom are managing to pay their mortgages and know the fundamental truth that those who put their money in bricks and mortar have, in the longer run, done better than those who put their savings in building societies.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the new policy platform adopted by the Communist party of the Soviet Union, which extols the virtues of markets, stresses the importance of competition, and calls for the scrapping of indiscriminate subsidies and for the selling of shares in state enterprises, all of which are opposed by the Labour party—[Interruption.]

Order. I am not certain that what goes on in the Soviet Union is the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister.

I am coming to the point of my question, Mr. Speaker. Is not it ironic that the Government of the Soviet Union, who are adopting the policies of Her Majesty's Government, are edging that country towards a free enterprise future, which is opposed by Labour Members whose minds are still sunk in the Socialist attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s?

As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point effectively. Those who have lived under Socialism know that it produces only poverty and oppression and they turn away from that to Conservative policies, as they are doing in eastern Europe.

Is the Prime Minister aware that for Wolverhampton to get down to the poll tax level projected by the Government it would need to cut £28 million from its spending, which is equivalent to the whole of our social services budget and almost the whole of our leisure services budget? Will she tell the people of Wolverhampton why they have to pay an additional surcharge of £47, which has nothing to do with their services but has been imposed by her Government? The people of Wolverhampton want to know, and they want that surcharge taken away.

If the local authority is finding it difficult to reduce its spending by £28 million, does it not realise—I doubt whether it does—that it is doing the worst possible thing by taking that money out of the pockets of its residents because that is what it is doing if it is setting a community charge that is higher than it need be?

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention, once the community charge is in place, to ensure that private landlords who currently charge their tenants rent and rates combined should lower their charges by the amount of the rates and not just pocket the difference?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I hope that private landlords will lower their charges when they know that they do not have to pay rates and thus act in accordance with the terms of their tenancy agreements. Various remedies are available for tenants whose landlords do not agree to such a reduction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is setting those remedies out in a leaflet which will be widely available.

Can the Prime Minister explain why, despite all the money and propaganda spent on it, the poll tax is the most detested and hated tax introduced for centuries? If she disputes what I say, could we have a referendum on the poll tax?

First, a rating revaluation of domestic properties, which some of us have been through before, would have been infinitely more detested than the community charge. The community charge will have more generous rebates than the rate rebate system ever gave and also a transitional relief scheme which does not depend on means testing. I understand why the Opposition do not like the community charge. It is because it will reveal that the highest spending councils are Labour councils. Labour has an even worse remedy in the roof tax, which would put a local tax on capital values regardless of whether the person living in the house owned it and would add to it a test of income tax.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom agriculture industry grows some 75 per cent. of our indigenous foodstuffs and at the same time contributes, through exports, some £1,600 million to the balance of payments and the balance of trade? Will she recognise that, and help to sustain the confidence of that vibrant industry by maintaining pressure on the European Community to dismantle the green pound?

I gladly respond to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the farmers who have put up production greatly and have also put up productivity. They have saved us a great deal on the balance of payments. We are very much aware of the difficulties caused by the green pound. We are seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the current price negotiations.

Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility suggested by some of her Back Benchers of reducing the poll tax by taking out of it education and perhaps teachers' salaries, fire services, the police or a combination of any of the three? Will she rule that out before the next election?

The revenue support grant already pays for a substantial part of education, teachers' salaries, polytechnics and, indeed, every part of education. The business rate already pays for another substantial part of education. Therefore, if we were to take education out and run it centrally—which I believe would be totally wrong. It is much better to do as we are doing and to take education away from the local authorities and put it out to the people so that they can run it themselves. That is true devolution. If education were taken out, a substantial part of the revenue support grant would have to come out with it, as well as some of the business rate.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

What encouragement can my right hon. Friend give to the people of Chorley who sensibly voted in the Conservative-controlled Chorley borough council, which is spending exactly in line with Government spending forecasts, but faces sky high community charges because of the high spending of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council?

I hear what my hon. Friend says about Lancashire. There is no justification for extravagance on the part of any authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it perfectly clear that where there is excessive spending he will not hesitate to charge-cap the authority.

If the Prime Minister is right to suggest that the poll tax is another Government success, will she confirm that there will not be any poll tax capping between now and the end of March?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, not all authorities have set their budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider the criteria for charge-capping when all the budgets have been set. The matter will have to be considered carefully for each authority. Naturally, that will take time and my right hon. Friend will do it as soon as he can.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Stalinist regime in Europe has found a new role model and has renamed itself the Albanian Labour party? Will my right hon. Friend take time to send a message of support to the people of Albania in the hope that, some day, they will be relieved of the burden of Socialism in the same way as the people of this country?

My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I hope that the Albanian Labour party will be unable to inflict upon the people of its country the sort of damage that Socialist parties here inflicted upon ours.

To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions she has had with (a) Chancellor Kohl and (b) other European Community state leaders concerning the location of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The Government believe that London is the natural choice for the home of the bank. I have made that clear to all my Community colleagues.

Despite the undoubted banking expertise and skills to be found in the United Kingdom, in both London and Edinburgh, it is extremely unlikely that the bank will be sited in London. Should not the Government show some magnanimity and argue the case for the bank to be sited in an eastern European capital such as Prague?

Or Newham.

No, Mr. Speaker. London is the largest centre for international banking in Europe and it houses more international banks than any other major European nation. Foreign banks enjoy more than 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international business and 520 foreign banks are represented in London. We have the largest equity market in Europe. I could go on to give many, many qualifications and justifications as to why the bank should be sited in London. London is quite the best position for that particular bank.