To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact recent changes to the conditions of special constables have had on recruiting; and what plans he has further to increase numbers of specials.

We are taking a series of measures to increase the strength of the special constabulary with the aim of recruiting an additional 10,000 special constables. We launched a national recruiting campaign at the beginning of this year and are shortly introducing a pilot scheme to pay a bounty to specials, as a further boost to recruitment. The latest information, from a sample of forces, suggests that strength increased by up to 6 per cent. in the first half of this year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that exceedingly full and comprehensive reply—the type of reply that we have come to expect from this Minister. Does he agree that more special constables would do a great deal to reduce levels of crime, particularly if they were better trained and more adequately remunerated? Will he redouble his efforts to establish a corps of special constables who would play the same part as the Territorial Army vis-à-vis the regular Army?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, after which perhaps I should be brief in answering his supplementary question. The specials certainly show the kind of public spirit and professionalism of the Territorials. The difference, of course, is that the specials are not preparing for a conflict that we hope will never happen. They are already directly and effectively involved in the fight against crime—which, alas, is all too real—and are performing the role that my hon. Friend wants them to perform.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide open air work camps for younger offenders serving custodial sentences.

Purposeful work is an important part of the regime for young offenders. There are at present opportunities to undertake agricultural and horticultural work in the open air at 23 young offender institutions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her Department may to some extent be missing the point? There is general disgust at the short non-custodial sentences that are being passed because of the absence of space in prisons of various sorts. In view of the number of military establishments underused and basically secure, should not we use those—and, if need be, make use of military personnel, too—to enable us to stop the amazing amount of re-offending by those on non-custodial sentences?

There are tough and dirty jobs for youngsters who are on probation and in non-custodial care, so I would not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's strictures on that point. I repeat what my right hon. Friend told the House on Tuesday: if the prison population continues to rise, he will consider calling on the assistance of the military and, possibly, calling for the use of military accommodation.

Has it occurred to the Minister that the problem is that there are plenty of young people camped out in the open air, but that they do not have any work?

The question refers to young offenders. Those in young offender institutions are occupied satisfactorily, to a certain extent, in open air work.

rose——

Mr. Mellor. No, Mr. Marlow.

I am very flattered, Mr. Speaker.

I well understand my hon. Friend's outrage at the behaviour of some youngsters today. Had he been in his place on Tuesday, when my right hon. Friend made the opening speech on the Loyal Address, he would have heard him say that the Government would introduce a measure to deal with the young thugs, as my hon. Friend calls them, who indulge in joyriding, a practice which hon. Members in all parts of the House deplore; those young people will, therefore, be offending.

Is not it time that the Minister ignored some of the siren voices behind her? She knows that the peak age for offending is 18. The 16 to 18-year-old group is the very group that has been punished by the Government. They have been punished by being stripped of their ability to claim benefit and by the pushing down of the real value of their training allowance. They have been punished in terms of unemployment and homelessness. Is not it about time that we had some more positive policies? Then young people would respect the Government.

Is not it time that Opposition Members realised that there is an absolute necessity for young people to grow up with respect for the law, property and persons? There is absolutely no need for young people to commit crimes when they have available to them perfectly good training courses that have been provided by the Government and with Government money.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that until the Criminal Justice Act 1988 amended the law, the penalty for taking away a vehicle without consent was up to three years' custodial sentence? That penalty was reduced at the time to six months. Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to restore a custodial sentence of up to two years for that offence?

Yes, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Cumbria county council on the question of policing in the county.

I am considering the police authority's application for an additional 24 police posts for 1992–93.

Has the Home Secretary noted the dramatic 52 per cent. increase in crime in west Cumbria, which is reflected in vandalism, violence, intimidation of the elderly, intimidation of shopkeepers, ram-raiding and burglary? Does he regard those figures as appalling? When he talks about appointing 1,000 police officers nationally, does he understand that that means only 1·5 additional police officers per constituency, which does not begin to meet the problem? We need 30 police officers immediately. The people of Workington demand those appointments.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that since we have been in office, there has been an increase in the strength of the Cumbrian police of 110 uniformed officers and 144 civilians, making a total increase of 254. There were eight extra police officers this year, seven of them on patrol duties. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, because I have seen the reports of the increase in vandalism and hooliganism in Workington. I assure the hon. Gentleman that since we have been in office we have increased expenditure for the Cumbrian police authority by 80 per cent.

It is not enough.

When Labour were in office they cut police expenditure by 2 per cent.

Do something.

Order.

My right hon. Friend may have read reports in the newspapers today that the European Commission wants to abolish newspaper boys and girls in Cumbria and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Are the police likely to be involved in that?

Not as far as I know.

Is the problem to which the Home Secretary referred special to Cumbria or is it a general one? Can he tell us of one chief officer of police in Britain who believes that he has sufficient police officers to perform the duties imposed upon him?

About eight or 10 chief constables are not asking for an increase in police forces for next year—[Interruption.]—and I shall be glad to send the right hon. Gentleman a list. If he is so proud of police numbers, he should recall that when he was a member of the Labour Cabinet he cut police expenditure and left our police 8,000 under establishment. He is the guilty one.

I am sure that the public in Cumbria and elsewhere realise that no other Government would allocate these extra resources for the police. When my right hon. Friend is considering Cumbria's representations, will he also consider the position of Cambridgeshire, where the number of police per thousand population is the lowest in the country?

I shall certainly consider that. As I said, I have secured increased expenditure next year for another 1,000 uniformed police officers, in addition to the further 600 this year. Since 1979, there has been an increase of 15,000 uniformed officers, whereas their numbers were cut under the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

No point of order arises from this.

I wish to raise the matter on Adjournment.

On the Adjournment. Yes, all right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on sentencing policy towards sex offenders who have molested children.

This is a serious issue. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 endorses the severity with which the courts view these offences and strengthens their powers to protect the public from offenders. Courts will be able to impose on a sexual offender who poses a serious risk to the public a longer custodial sentence than would be justified solely by the seriousness of the offence. The courts will be able to order longer and more intensive supervision and treatment for sex offenders.

What does the Minister say to my constituents who, following abuse by their father for many years, summoned up enough courage to give evidence in court after he attacked the 10-year-old granddaughter of the family? After they had gone through the ordeal of giving evidence, their father, who was found guilty of eight serious charges with nine being left on the file, was put on probation and allocated to a hostel not two miles from where his last victim lives and where he can be seen by the family as they pass through the town centre. Does the Minister realise that that is deeply upsetting to the family, who have been devastated by the experience? Some form of custody—whether in hospital or in prison is a moot point—is required to give peace of mind to the people who gave evidence and who displayed much courage and fortitude in so doing.

I entirely understand the strong feelings of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and I sympathise with them. He will appreciate that I am not aware of the details of the case. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the placement of this convicted person in a nearby hostel, so if he will give me the details of the case I shall have it investigated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation.

The Minister has shown concern about sentencing patterns, but does his concern extend beyond that to cases where the prosecution service has not been prepared to prosecute an accused person? Does not that leave others open to molestation as well?

The Crown prosecution service always faces the difficult task of obtaining adequate evidence to secure a conviction in court. However, it should be some consolation to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that in the past five years the average sentence for rape has increased by 70 per cent. The Criminal Justice Act will allow for much longer supervision of sex offenders after they are released from gaol. My opinion is that sex offending cannot be cured, but it can and should be better supervised and controlled.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the views that I have expressed in the House, which at times have been received with ridicule and dismay, have become law subsequently? If the Home Office really wants to stop the abuse of children and the rape of women, it must pass a law allowing the castration of the perpetrators, not for a first offence, in case there is a mistake, but for a second offence—unless people are unfit to plead. That is the way to stop it and that sanction would hardly ever have to be used because it would be the ultimate deterrent for men.

My hon. Friend's suggestion is not the present intention of Her Majesty's Government. We intend to reinforce the courts,as we have done in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, by sustaining their powers to sentence convicted sex offenders to life imprisonment. The reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will mean two things: first, convicted sex offenders will, rightly, spend much longer in prison; and, secondly, they will be supervised when they are released.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received urging him to take new action to combat racist attacks.

In the new year I will publish a progress report on the work of the police service and other agencies in tackling the problem of racially motivated attacks. I make it clear that there should be no place for racially motivated attacks in our country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been calculated that there is one racial attack every 30 minutes and that the savagery of such attacks has increased? With racism on the increase in Europe and in this country because of high unemployment, is not there a danger that there could be yet more racial assaults in Britain? Have not calls for action by organisations such as the Society for Black Lawyers been met by Government intransigence? Is not it time to have a specific crime of racial harassment, as I proposed in my 1985 Racial Harassment Bill?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. I recognise that there has been an increase in racially motivated attacks—there was a rise in 1990. As the hon. Gentleman knows from a debate on London which he attended, last year nearly 3,000 attacks were reported in London—an increase of 8 per cent. The clear-up rate is about 30 per cent. I assure the House that, in all the speeches that I have made at police meetings and conferences this year, I have repeatedly stressed to the police that I want them to give this type of crime high priority.

Clearly the tributary of the River Tiber that runs through Leyton is already foaming. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best and most subtle way to prevent such attacks is to ensure that the British people know that they have a Government who are taking the steps necessary to keep firm control of immigration and particularly to prevent people from abusing our immigration rules by entering this country under the bogus concept of being political refugees? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps that he has taken to do just that.

We have followed a policy of keeping tight control of immigration. As my hon. Friend knows, I shall introduce the Asylum Bill to deal with that problem. Over the years, successive Governments of all complexions have worked to improve race relations and Britain probably has the best record in Europe for harmonious race relations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the access to advice of asylum seekers.

Following my right hon. Friend's statement about asylum on 2 July, we have received about 100 letters from hon. Members and about 750 from members of the public and interested organisations. Most have included comments on the availability of advice for asylum seekers.

Will the Minister concede that the proposal in the Asylum Bill removes the right of people seeking political asylum to have access to green form advice? Is he aware that that proposal has been met with horror by advice agencies, legal aid practices and members of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service? Should not he announce that he will withdraw those parts of the Bill and give people seeking political asylum the same rights to legal advice as anyone else would have, rather than introduce this appalling system under which they will not have the same equality before the law?

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. There are no such proposals in the Bill and we never suggested that there should be. We have said that immigration and asylum cases are unique in that the Government and the United Nations fund a free, professional legal advice and representation service in the shape of UKIAS and the Government fund free solicitors' advice through the green form. With the extension of appeal rights to all asylum seekers, it is not unreasonable to propose—as the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary propose—that this anomalous double provision should end and that increased resources for advice should be concentrated on UKIAS, especially as the service has a better record of winning cases than solicitors and is more cost effective.

It is clear to solicitors and to many other people that our present asylum procedures are being abused. That should stop. Does my hon. Friend agree that it does the cause of racial integration no good at all that our procedures should be abused? Does he reject the comments that we have heard from the Opposition which have much more to do with their courting votes than with human rights?

Of course asylum procedures should not be abused. Those who are making asylum claims should have access to free professional legal advice, as they want it. We propose to deal with abuses and to ensure that asylum seekers have the free legal advice that they need.

Does the Minister accept that UKIAS is not capable of providing the same level of professional advice as can presently be provided under the legal aid system? Does he accept that individuals should have the right to choose representation which represents the best value for money and that there is no saving to the Treasury under his proposals? Will he explain why he wrote to UKIAS on 7 October threatening that unless it accepted the Government's proposals he would withdraw its funding or curtail it completely?

What I said to UKIAS—I have had two meetings with the organisation and written to it—is that the availability of green form aid is finally a matter for the Government and Parliament, not for UKIAS. I also said that as we are increasing UKIAS's funding and its ability to represent and advise, if it was unwilling to advise those seeking advice on asylum, it called into question whether the funding for advice, not representation, should go to UKIAS. There is an alternative. We could fund all advice through the green form, but that would not be especially helpful to asylum seekers, as UKIAS has a better record of success in giving advice and making representations to adjudicators and tribunals.

What proportion of asylum seekers come into this country on visitors' permits and then decide that they are in fear of persecution just as their permits come to an end? Is not it easy to give those people advice?

Yes. About three quarters of asylum claimants are already in the country, many of them legitimately as students or visitors and some of them illegitimately, as they have entered the country illegally. Each case needs to be considered on its merits. There can be reasons why people make a claim for asylum after they have been here for some time and we consider all cases properly. We believe that every asylum seeker, whether in-country or arriving at the ports, should have access to good free legal advice.

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

As I have made clear to the hon. Member on the many previous occasions on which he has asked this question, we have no plans to introduce free or concessionary television licences for all pensioners. That would be a crude and non-selective instrument of social policy costing £470 million a year. It would benefit many pensioners who can well afford the fee and would mean that other licence holders would have to pay £116 for their colour licence.

This Tory Government are a hard-hearted bunch. Have not we reached a pathetic state of affairs when, as a result of the 1988 decision, 75-year-old widows in warden accommodation cannot have a free television licence, yet others who are younger might receive it because they qualified before 1988? Now, with all their claptrap about citizens charters, the Government have had the BBC send to every Member of Parliament letters carrying the Tory party propaganda that they cannot allow pensioners to have a free television licence. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Not merely does the hon. Gentleman ask the same question each time; he asks the same supplementary. The only difference this time is that arrangements have been made for the BBC to collect the licence fee, but the rules are precisely the same as they were when they were collected by the Government. The hon. Gentleman ought to bear it in mind that the rules are very clear. It is possible for local authorities to organise their elderly people's accommodation provision in such a way as to gain the concessionary licence. The benefit should be given to those who are most in need of it. We have concentrated the money that the hon. Gentleman would give to pensioners, whether they need it or not, into the income support rates of those who are worst off. That is the correct, fair and just way to do it.

Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that among pensioners, particularly those who took up residence in sheltered accommodation after 1988, there is a real fear of injustice, in that some of them have to pay the full licence and some of them do not? I hope that my hon. Friend will look at that problem, together with the BBC licence as a whole. Pensioners are aware that they do not have to pay for ITV or any other channels but that they are called upon to pay for BBC television programmes. My hon. Friend should look at the licence as a whole.

We are going to look at the whole question of BBC financing and the licence fee in the run-up to the renewal of the charter.

Will the Minister reconsider the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is the Minister aware that Members of Parliament, and anybody else with two homes, need only one television licence to cover both homes, the assumption being that they are not watching television simultaneously in both homes. Will the Minister therefore announce a concession: that all old age pensioners should be given the right to watch television without having to pay for a television licence?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman correctly states the law. No doubt a BBC inspection van will be visiting him.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent allocation of regional television franchises by the Independent Television Commission.

The commission was carrying out the responsibilities laid on it by Parliament in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The decisions on channel 3, and other licences, are a matter for the commission.

In view of the widespread and sometimes ill-founded criticism of the recent franchise round and despite the uniform excellence of the successful tenders, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless consider the possibility of providing a review system so as either to show up ways in which it could be improved in future or to demonstrate that an extremely good job has been done by the Independent Television Commission?

I think that a good job has been done by the ITC, but I am prepared to consider any representations that are made to me about the future determination of licences. The situation will change in the 1990s and beyond. There will be a greater proliferation of services, well beyond these licences, and at least one other channel, channel 5.

Does the Home Secretary share the view of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in her letter to the outgoing chairman of TV-am? Does he feel like offering a similar apology?

When there are 40 bids for 16 licences, some companies will lose out. The system has resulted in new blood coming into the television industry. Some of the companies that have been displaced have, in their time, displaced others. The opportunity that they now have is to become independent production companies, an opportunity that they did not have in the last round of licence decisions.

Can my right hon. Friend answer a riddle for me? How is it that Television South West passed the quality threshold, offered by far the most money but still lost?

That is a riddle for the ITC, not me, to answer. The ITC made the determination and it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the matter, especially as I believe that it is now sub judice, because the company has applied for judicial review.

Does the Home Secretary, in common with his right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister. now feel too painfully aware that the franchise round has ended in farce, with some companies losing their licences for offering too much and others failing because they offered too little? Will the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that a system based on the highest bid was always likely to undermine the quality and variety of British television? What message has he for the 2,000 television staff who lost their jobs in the run-up to the franchise round, and the similar number who will now be put out of work?

I do not agree at all. New blood has come into the industry, and many of the companies now have the opportunity to become independent production companies. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the franchise round has been unsuccessful. On the contrary, we have always sought to increase viewer choise. We introduced Independent Television; the Labour party was against it. We have introduced new opportunities for television, and we will introduce a new channel—Channel 5. We believe in more viewer choice and more competition. That will improve quality, and the Labour party has always resisted that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Broadcasting Act 1990 placed on the ITC the requirement to ensure that all bids were sustainable and stable for the whole 10 years of the franchise? Is not the ITC's judgment that that is the case both with the existing franchisees who have retained their licences and with some of the newer companies? At the press conference at which the ITC announced the licences Mr. Simon Albery, who ran the campaign for quality television, said to me, "Quality has won".

I am sure that that will prove the case. Whenever there has been a change within television in this country there has always been the accusation that quality would suffer. That has not happened. Over the past 30 years, as choice and competition have worked their way through, variety and quality have improved.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present level of those seeking political asylum; and what were the comparable figures in 1989.

Between January and September this year the average monthly total of those seeking political refugee status in this country has been about 3,800. The monthly average in 1989 was 950. These figures exclude dependants.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern at the large number of people seeking political asylum? Is he further aware that in a city such as Birmingham, where problems arise over bringing families into the United Kingdom, there is widespread disgust and dismay at the high number of bogus asylum applications? Is he also aware that he has the united resolve of Conservative Members for the speedy passage of his Bill?

I thank my hon. Friend. I said that the average number was 3,800. The actual figure for applications in October was 4,400 and the number is likely to reach between 45,000 and 50,000 this year, whereas we used to receive 2,000 or 3,000 applications. This is a serious and important problem which has to be tackled. That is why we shall introduce the Asylum Bill, which will be debated next week. I am surprised that the Labour party has decided to oppose it.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the legal opinion that to restrict access to legal advice and representation in asylum and immigration matters may be a breach of the law? Will he instruct his Ministers to stop trying to bribe and blackmail the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, which does not wish to collude in the Government's plans to pander to Essex man by restricting the longstanding traditional rights of people fleeing violence and persecution to seek refuge in this country?

This country has a long tradition of accepting genuine political refugees, but there is no doubt that the fact that three quarters of all applications are made by people who have been living in this country for weeks, months and, in some cases, years, is tantamount to an abuse of the system. What we must do is to distinguish between bogus and genuine refugees. That is what we will do, and we will do it fairly. Not only that—we intend to increase and extend the right of access to an appellate system, which does not exist at the moment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest injustice to genuine asylum seekers is to be found in the enormously long delays that occur in the processing of applications? What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to reduce those delays?

In May of this year, we were pressed by Amnesty International and other refugee groups to speed up the process of determination, and the Bill before the House, which will be debated next week, sets out a scheme that will allow determination to be decided within a period of three months. That applies not only to a decision but to appearing under an appellate process. That will speed up the existing time, which can be anything up to two to three years. It is important that we decide the matter quickly because, if we do so, the bogus applicants can be returned to the countries from which they came.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to close or amalgamate rural magistrates courts in England and Wales during the next 12 months.

No, Sir. Proposals for the closure of magistrates courthouses or the amalgamation of petty sessional divisions are the responsibility of magistrates courts committees after consulting those concerned.

What guidelines does the Home Department give to magistrates courts committees on how they should approach the closure and amalgamation of rural magistrates courts? I am sure that the Minister will be aware—representing a rural area, as I also do—that there is considerable concern about closures and amalgamations that lead to both defendants and witnesses having to travel vast distances. Does he agree that access to justice is more important than administrative convenience?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is an extremely important point, and access to justice in rural areas is, indeed, subject to guidance from the Home Office. Let me add that, in taking recent decisions concerning rural areas, the Home Office has almost invariably supported those who have felt that rural courthouses should be kept open. I have looked up my own record over the past six months, and I find that the only courthouse whose closure I approved was in Leicestershire and was precisely 500 yd from a new courthouse costing £8 million which we had erected to take its place.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if justice is to be seen to be done, it is far better for it to be dispensed closer to the community in which the crime took place? Will he join me in saluting the work done by some of the small magistrates courts in west Norfolk, such as those in Hunstanton and Fakenham, and does he agree that every effort should be made to ensure that they stay open?

It is extremely important that small rural benches—provided that they are large enough to provide the necessary range of skills and an adequate number of people to dispense rural justice—are kept. But it is also the case that suggestions for amalgamation of rural—or, indeed, urban—benches come not from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but from the magistrates courts committees in the areas concerned.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition approve in principle of measures to enhance the cost effectiveness of our magistrates courts system? Is he also aware, however, that the Government's policy of strict cash limits can in some cases be seen as a blunt instrument whose use could result in closures of courts in many local communities? Will the Minister now tell the House how many local magistrates courts he estimates are likely to close as a result of the Government's new funding policy? Or has he not bothered to work it out?

The Government's new funding policy—which was supported by the Labour party during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, so the hon. Gentleman cannot complain about that—is aimed at ensuring that the workload is taken into account in allocating resources while encouraging the management of magistrates courts to improve the efficiency of local justice so that it is better carried out. Suggestions for closures and amalgamations come from the individual magistrates courts committees in the areas in question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am extremely grateful to him for the wise decision to retain the St. Neots and Huntingdon courthouses? Is he also aware that there has been considerable disquiet over the proposed amalgamation of the St. Neots and Huntingdon bench? Will he carefully consider the representations that I have sent to him on that subject?

I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that I took a wise decision over those courthouse closures and they remain open. I will of course carefully consider any correspondence that my hon. Friend has sent to me.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's plans to maximise the number of people on the 1992–93 electoral register; and if he will make a statement.

As in previous years we shall conduct a nationwide advertising campaign in the early autumn to encourage people to complete and return the electoral registration form. We shall also continue our annual research into the working methods of electoral registration officers, and produce updated best practice notes to assist them in compiling an accurate register.

The current electoral register is a mess. One million people are missing from it according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. There is to be a new register on which the general election could be fought. There is time to put the register right. Will the Government spend advertising money to achieve that? Only 0·3 per cent. of the advertising budget is spent on electoral registration. We have time to put things democratically right if the Government will act now.

The hon. Gentleman should know that advertising money is being spent and electoral registration officers are working hard to ensure that their electoral registers are up to date and accurate.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

I have been asked to reply.

Where is he?

Order. I call the Leader of the House.

This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a bilateral with President Bush in Rome. He is currently attending the NATO summit now under way there. That summit will set the future course for NATO to ensure that it remains as it has been—a bedrock of stability in a still uncertain world. The fact that Opposition Members should regret the fact that my right hon. Friend is in Rome, shows how little attention they pay to defence and NATO matters. [Interruption.]

Order. This kind of thing gives a very bad impression elsewhere.

On Europe, to put it beyond all doubt in this House, in the country, and on the continent, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Britain shall not go down the route of a federal Europe and that it is for Britain to decide on the future of her own currency?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are not going down the route of a federal Europe. With regard to a single currency and economic and monetary union, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to commit Britain now to a single currency. We will be able shortly to debate those matters more fully in the House, but we have on many occasions made it clear that this Parliament will decide on the single currency issue at some date well into the future if and when it should arise.

Is the—[Interruption.]

Order. I call Mr. Kinnock.

Where is he?

All present and correct, Sir.

The right hon. Gentleman will be all present on the Opposition Benches for some time to come and will not be leading for Britain at future NATO summits. In answer to his question, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the commitment to income tax is one that would extend over the lifetime of the future Parliament and perhaps beyond that. That is a general commitment for some time to come. No precise dates have been given. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions about tax, given the very high public spending commitments to which his party is committed.

The Leader of the House has even changed the line on what the Chancellor said on income tax this morning. As far as talking about tax is concerned, I realise the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity. His Government have, after all, lifted the tax burden on the British people to the highest of any Government in history. The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling. Since the Prime Minister has announced the target rate for income tax, surely he can announce the target rate for VAT. If he can tell us the one, surely he can tell us the other. Why are the Government so specific on income tax and so shifty on VAT?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the commitment on income tax is a longer-term one and that we hope to achieve it as and when conditions permit and when it is prudent to do so. We have made that clear on many occasions. But it is really not for him to argue the case about taxes because, as we well know—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that. The reason they do not like it is that they are so sensitive about it. We know perfectly well that the Labour party has committed itself to an additional £35,000 million of public spending and no capping on local authority expenditure. The two combined would mean a very high increase in the tax and community charge burden on all people.

The longer that the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the less he convinces. Will he tell us now? After making huge rises in VAT in the past 12 years, what are the Government's plans to make further increases in VAT?

The Government have made their public expenditure plans absolutely clear, and they are clear on the normal basis. It is equally clear—the right hon. Gentleman has not refuted this—that, in fact, the £35 billion spending commitment of the Labour party would mean either a very big increase in income tax and/or a very big increase in VAT, and it would be likely to be both.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's proposals to introduce powers to prevent local authorities from excessive spending by means of capping will be very well received by all those in Labour-controlled authorities who have to put up with excessive tax bills? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that those people will not welcome the pledge that was given from the Opposition Benches yesterday to ensure that high-spending Labour authorities can go with gay abandon to yet higher spending?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a point that will have to be stressed again and again. On top of the increased taxes—direct and indirect taxes that would come from their spending pledges—the Opposition have now committed themselves to no capping on high-spending local authorities. That can mean only higher community charge and council tax bills as well.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Lord President aware that, at the end of last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry warmly welcomed the Government committee report recommending, among other environmental measures, an increase in petrol tax? They have referred that recommendation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he ensure before the Budget that, in any such conservation measure, account is taken of the needs of rural areas where—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

Admittedly including the area that we will represent after today, in rural areas in which the car is a necessity and in which the cost of petrol is alreay high, what compensatory measures are the Government prepared to support?

My right hon. Friends have not committed the Government to any position on tax, but I notice that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. As it would put it, the Liberal Democratic party claims to make people face up to hard decisions by increasing pricing and taxes. However, because some of its Members of Parliament come from rural areas, they want those rural areas to be protected. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman and his party to make different noises in different places.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing is more damaging to the fabric of a nation than the failure properly to educate its children? May I urge him to press for a return to traditional standards of teaching in our primary schools as soon as possible?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that what we are doing through the national curriculum, and especially in the testing of seven, 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, will ensure not only that we can monitor progress on standards, but that pupils who are falling behind will be given the assistance that they need to improve. The point of our educational reforms is to improve standards.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

I have been asked to reply.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 22 November is the first anniversary of the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares in the Firth of Clyde as a result of its gear being snagged by the submarine HMS Trenchant. However, is he aware that the Royal Navy is proposing to hold a similar exercise in the same waters on the day immediately following that anniversary? Is not the timing of that exercise particularly insensitive, and is there any reason why it should not be postponed for a period of, say, a week as a mark of respect to the crew of the Antares, all of whom perished when the vessel was sunk?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the considerable steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to deal with the aftermath of that tragic incident. I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's particular point to my right hon. Friend's attention.

As our Prime Minister is away at such an important summit conference—important for the security of the whole of the western world—does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate at this moment to reaffirm the Government's commitment to that European pillar, the Western European Union?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it absolutely clear that, in our view, that body will play an important part in our future defence position. I am sure that that will be discussed today at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

I have been asked to reply.

In view of his admission some weeks ago that this Government have imposed the heaviest tax burden in British history, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for the Chancellor's wholly inaccurate statement to the House yesterday that the Government have been cutting taxes ever since 1979?

The truth of the matter is that we have seen a substantial reduction in direct tax rates, a substantial improvement in standards of living and, as a result of the reduction in tax rates, an improvement in the tax base, which has enabled us not only to achieve increased public spending on a large scale in our key priority areas, especially health, but to achieve a reduction in direct income tax and, overall, considerably to improve our public sector borrowing requirement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support among parents for the Government's proposal that schools should make their public examination results available for publication in common form? Does he agree that that would give parents an objective answer to the question, "How is my child's school doing?", as well as further pressing back the frontiers of choice in education?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to an important part of the reforms that we are undertaking. I pay tribute to him for first raising the subject of league tables for schools' performances in the Bill that he introduced earlier in the year. League tables of examination results, destinations of school leavers, truancy rates and all the other items that we are suggesting will be an important aid towards improving parental choice. I was glad to note that that was endorsed by the chairman of the Audit Commission this morning.

Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government voted against the EC directive on maternity leave which would have given women a minimum of 16 weeks of maternity leave and protection from being sacked because they are pregnant? This is the second time in less than two weeks that the Government have failed to respond to the Prime Minister's so-called commitment to women's equality. Why should women believe anything that the Government say?

The hon. Lady is wrong. An agreement was reached yesterday which represents a sensible balance on maternity pay. It carries forward the interests of women without imposing an undue burden on employers. The Government abstained on a different aspect relating to the treaty of Rome basis. We did not believe that the issue should have come within that particular article. That is why we abstained. The political agreement was reached clearly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures given yesterday for expenditure on the national health service, education and transport show our clear commitment to expenditure on those items? Does he agree that those people in the House who advocate expenditure without saying how much they are prepared to spend are entirely unconvincing?

My hon. Friend is right. The autumn statement yesterday demonstrated that we have substantially increased in real terms—after inflation—the spending in each of the three areas that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, in health the additions announced yesterday represent £50 more for every man, woman and child in Britain. That means that the increase in health spending since we took office is 55 per cent. in real terms. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the high additional spending programmes of some £35 billion advocated by the Labour party, which would put a crippling tax burden on so many families in Britain.