To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what machinery he proposes to ensure that programmes provided by satellite will be of a comparable standard to those provided currently by the British Broadcasting Corporation and independent television.

The service that British Satellite Broadcasting Limited plans to launch next year will be an IBA service, and will be regulated in accordance with the 1984 Act. Satellite services relayed via cable fall to be regulated by the Cable Authority. We are considering extending the authority"s remit to all non-DBS services uplinked from the United Kingdom, whether or not relayed via cable. As to services uplinked from other countries, we are pressing for effective agreements that will cover those uplinked from Europe.

Is the Minister aware that the Home Secretary"s speech last night will be greeted with dismay by everyone who believes that British public sector broadcasting is a model that is aspired to throughout the world? Can he explain the logic of a policy which, on the one hand, consistently criticises and interferes with BBC and ITV television and, on the other hand, proposes to give freedom in satellite television to the likes of Mr. Murdoch? Is it not an appalling prospect if the standards of the British press are to be the model for British broadcasting?

The speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last night was excellent and I am not saying that just because he is sitting beside me. My right hon. Friend explored some of the avenues that could be opened during the 1990s as we move into a different and changing ecology in the broadcasting world. It was in that context that my right hon. Friend explored the possibility —no more than the possibility —that the IBA system and the ITV companies might be relieved of some of their public service broadcasting obligations as more satellite channels are launched in the sky. We welcome the coming of the satellite channels, because they will provide more competition and more choice for the consumer. It is a matter of pride that the first satellite will be run by a British consortium.

Reverting to the original question, is there not an argument in a free society that if consumers choose to pay for a particular service, the level of control that is necessary over that service is not necessarily the same as that which applies to the four channels that are universally available?

Yes, my hon. Friend has a good point. If people pay for a service, they are making a definite choice at the start that it is a service that they wish to receive. Therefore, the need to have quite as tight regulation over that service is probably diminished. Subscription, which is what my hon. Friend was talking about, establishes a direct link between the consumer and the broadcasting authority.

Will the Minister explain how it came about that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, held a press conference to announce that Channel 4 and BBC 2 would be allocated space on the DBS satellite? Is the Home Secretary still in charge of Government broadcasting policy? If he is, will he reassure the House that terrestrial broadcasting of BBC 2 and Channel 4 will not cease until everyone has access to satellite broadcasting?

The hon. Gentleman believes too much of what he reads in the papers. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held a joint meeting, at which I was also present, with the chairmen of the BBC, IBA and British Satellite Broadcasting on the exploratory proposition that they should consider the possibility of BBC 2 and Channel 4 going on to satellite and at the same time continuing to be broadcast terrestrially while the market for dishes is built up in this country.

The House will be assured by my hon. Friend"s reply, but what would be the advantage to the viewer of BBC 2 and Channel 4 going to satellite in the relatively short term, given that many people will be unable to afford a dish?

That is a fair point. If BBC 2 and Channel 4 were to end up being broadcast on satellite only, that would free a good deal of frequency, which would be available for further terrestrial transmissions either nationally or regionally. If such transmission took place regionally, without universal coverage, there would be a great many more local television broadcasts.

How is it that the Home Secretary chooses to make controversial speeches on this subject outside this House, but chooses not to answer questions on it this afternoon? [Interruption.] As the Minister of State has been told how to reply to that question, will he give us a straightforward answer to the fundamental question that arises from the Coningsby club speech of last night? Are the Government considering abolishing the licence fee, or not?

If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Order Paper he would have seen that the question I am answering is limited, as it refers to programmes provided by satellite only. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his speech last night—an excellent and wide-ranging one—that he was putting forward the prospect that, at the end of the day, the BBC licence fee was "not immortal"—any more than the right hon. Gentleman is immortal as deputy leader of the Labour party. As there are more satellite channels, one of the possibilities that should be considered is whether the BBC should continue to be financed by licence fee only.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the effect of the imposition of visas on visitors to the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Nigeria upon the operations of the immigration service; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the effect of the imposition of visas on visitors to the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Nigeria upon the operations of the immigration service; and if he will make a statement.

The House will be pleased to know that the position at the airports has been transformed. Congestion in terminal buildings has been eased and delays reduced. That has improved conditions for passengers, for relatives and friends meeting them, and for staff. The total number of persons refused entry has dropped from about 24,000 in 1986 to just over 19,000 in 1987. Difficult casework has been much reduced. Without the visa imposition, and with a 13 per cent. increase in passenger traffic in 1987, the pressure on the principal terminals dealing with passengers from the five countries would have been impossible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his full and reassuring answer. Has the imposition of visas been welcomed on the Indian sub-continent?

I saw our commissioner in Delhi only yesterday and he told me that, although there is some concern about the recent increase in settlement fees, Indians are pleased—now that the system is well established—that they can establish in advance of their journey whether they qualify for entry here. Those who come here often are pleased that they can get a multi-entry visa, and 90 per cent. of applications are processed within 24 hours of receipt.

My hon. Friend will be aware of recent articles in the national press that have exposed the existence of illegal networks smuggling immigrants into this country, particularly through East Anglian ports such as Ipswich and Felixstowe. Will my hon. Friend make use of the welcome reduction of pressure on the immigration service to put still greater effort into the task of eliminating such criminal networks and detecting illegal entrants?

I assure my hon. Friend that the passage quoted in the press was a rather purple one. The figures for immigrants entering that way do not tally with figures in our immigration and nationality department.

Bearing in mind the revelations in The Guardian this week that Home Office officials were keeping information from the Minister about asylum seekers, what assurance can he give that the information that he has just given is accurate? Is it not the reality that hon. Members with large amounts of immigration casework are receiving information from their constituents that single relatives seeking entry are refused permission?

I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind concern about my welfare. I assure him that all the information mentioned inaccurately in The Guardian has regularly been seen by me on a weekly basis.

Does the Minister agree that when a visitor"s visa has been refused and an appeal has been lodged, the applicant is frequently told that inquiries must be made, presumably by the Home Office? Lengthy delays occur, sometimes of more than a year. Indeed, did not the ombudsman point that out to the Minister following a case that I had referred to him and which he upheld? Will the Minister ensure that something is done to speed up inquiries in such cases?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why we introduced the rule changes earlier this year. I fail to understand why the Opposition voted against them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those rule changes have been accepted, and even welcomed, by the large Asian community in Wolverhampton? Will he explain why the Government still insist that the taxpayer and the ratepayer employ the race relations industry, whose principal duty seems to be to complain frequently about any Government measures on immigration or race relations?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support, which is always welcome. I am never sure when I will have it, but it is nice to receive it.

How does the Minister justify having insufficient staff to enter data into the Home Office computer that produces statistics on the fate of asylum-seekers refused entry to Britain? Is it because the Government really are doing a cover-up job, as suggested by The Guardian this week? Or is it another example of the gross incompetence of that part of the Home Office, as has been demonstrated by the shambles at Lunar house and the crisis at the passport office?

The hon. Gentleman would know, if he had mastered his immigration brief better in the year in which he has been——

Answer the question.

I am answering it. If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet for a second, I shall tell him about the port returns. The port returns, of which he has evidently obtained a copy, show only immediate action taken. They may well be inaccurate one week or even one day later, because of subsequent action. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, in my most helpful way, that he obtains his information from me rather than from leaked documents reported in The Guardian.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Irish ambassador to discuss the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

I met the ambassador on 13 June at his request. He repeated to me his Government"s concern about these convictions. I made it clear that I was bound to respect the recent confirmation of the original verdict after a full hearing by the Court of Appeal.

Did the ambassador inform the Home Secretary of the widespread belief in Ireland that an Irishman accused of terrorist offences in Britain cannot expect a fair trial? Is not the Birmingham bombing case casting doubt on the whole judicial system in Britain? Will the Home Secretary find some way of ending the scandal once and for all?

The ambassador did not express himself in that way. I do not think that he would have become an ambassador if he had. The hon. Gentleman is simply feeding prejudice by passing on such criticism. After a lot of thought, I referred the case of the Birmingham bombers back to the Court of Appeal because there was new material which it seemed to me a court of law ought to consider. The Court of Appeal considered the case again and reaffirmed the original verdict and I have to respect that.

There is very little point in my right hon. Friend meeting the Irish ambassador on any occasion to discuss this matter, since there is not the slightest doubt that the Birmingham bombers had a fair trial in the first place and had their case reviewed again and again. Those who suggest in their written works that other people were responsible might have the guts to come forward and identify them.

I agree with my hon. Friend"s second theme. If hon. Members or any other citizens have specific information on this or other cases, it is their duty to come forward and give it in the proper way to the proper people.

Mr. Mullin.

Name them.

Order. Mr. Mullin.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that he has the power—and can choose to use it—to set up an independent review tribunal which could consider evidence inadmissible before a court of law, and that that has been done in other alleged serious miscarriages of justice?

I have the power to set up inquiries, but in this case I took a course which seemed much more straightforward. I referred the new material to the Court of Appeal, which then, as the hon. Gentleman knows, had the right to look at all matters and to hear all arguments all over again. The Court of Appeal held a very long hearing. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that it was a hearing of record length, and, I would say, thoroughness. That was the straightforward way of handling the matter, and the original verdict was reaffirmed.

If the highest courts in the land are satisfied of the guilt of those men, what interest is served, except that of the IRA, in attempting to set aside their judgment?

My hon. Friend knows from his long experience that in many cases throughout the history of this country people have continued to disagree with verdicts. In a country such as ours that disagreement can be satisfactorily resolved only by a court of law. That is what happened in this case.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither the security authorities nor the prison authorities, both of which are subject to his Department, regard the people convicted of the Birmingham bombing as high-risk, high-security prisoners? That is evident in the handling of the Old Bailey hearings in comparison with other such hearings. It is also evident to anyone who has visited the men in prison. Does he agree that the fact that the prison authorities who know the men on a day-to-day basis do not regard them as dangerous tends to confirm the widespread opinion that they are innocent?

The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He knows that the secondhand, hearsay opinion held by prison officers is neither here nor there. The matter has been referred to the only people who, in a law-abiding country, are competent to make a decision, and that is those in a court of law. It has been examined thoroughly. There has been no serious criticism of the way in which it has been done, and the House, like myself, should respect the outcome of that process.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to look at Thursday"s debate on the proposed new clause 2 of the Criminal Justice Bill? He will see that a good deal of unease was expressed on both sides of the House about the validity of the Birmingham Six convictions. In view of the widespread unease expressed by former Home Secretaries and other senior Ministers, will he look again, as some of his predecessors have done, to see whether it is his duty to establish a special review into the case of the Birmingham Six?

This morning I read the interesting and high-quality debate on the new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill. I recognise my hon. Friend"s deep-seated, persistent concern with this case. As I have said before, it is normal in a free country that people should have strongly differing views about verdicts in controversial cases such as this. I repeat that I believe—nothing in the debate altered my view—that the straightforward course was followed by me and others who handled the matter. I am bound to respect the confirmation of the original verdict reached in this thorough way, and the House should do the same.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted persons are currently held in English prisons; and if he will make a statement.

On 30 April this year 39,625 convicted prisoners were held in prison department establishments in England and Wales. A total of 1,650 of those prisoners were unsentenced, 1,340 were sentenced females and 8,327 were sentenced male young offenders.

If the recent parliamentary delegation to Iran is to have any chance of success, surely it is important to give some sort of concession, for example, releasing Iranian prisoners held in this country, remembering that some of them have changed their political views. Some who have been anti-Khomeini are now pro-Khomeini. Some concession is necessary. Even the Council of Europe argues for the exchange of prisoners. Why cannot the Government do that with the Iranian regime? Something has to be done if we want Terry Waite and others to go free. Now is the opportunity.

My impression of that question is that it is wide of the one that the hon. Gentleman tabled. However, I shall make two points. First, the hon. Gentleman might care to bear in mind that there are some 755 people in prison for criminal damage—that is damaging property. I should have thought that that would make criticism from the hon. Gentleman wholly inappropriate on subjects of this sort.

I thank my hon. Friend for the figures he has given. Does he agree that the prisons are overcrowded and that, as a result, many policemen are being forced to look after remand prisoners in police cells? Will he please take some urgent action to consider allowing remand prisoners to be kept in hostels run by authorities other than the Home Office?

My hon. Friend makes a very serious point. We have brought about a substantial reduction in the number of prisoners held in police cells. In March the number was about 1,500, but it is currently about 750, which is a substantial reduction. We have also put in place a number of measures designed to reduce substantially the number remanded in prisons. My hon. Friend is right when he says that it is a serious problem, but we are addressing it.

While it remains the Minister"s judgment that in some cases prisoners must be kept in police cells, will he take special measures to ensure that they are not remanded hundred of miles from their homes and their legal advisers? Does the Minister recognise that this is causing great personal hardship and extreme difficulty in the preparation of cases for court?

A number of the measures that we have taken—in particular, the new camps—have reduced the problem to which the hon. and learned Member refers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote the greater use of independent programme producers by the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television.

We have sought and received a commitment from the BBC and IBA that, subject to satisfaction on cost and quality, 25 per cent. of original television output covering a wide range of programmes will be commissioned from independent producers by the end of 1992. We attach great importance to the achievement of that target, and we shall continue to keep in touch with both broadcasters and independent producers, to satisfy ourselves about progress towards it.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House to what extent the Government"s independent production initiative has helped reduce costs and increase efficiency in the television industry? Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the need for a fifth television channel, because the BBC is either unable or unwilling to broadcast programmes after midnight, there is an overwhelming case for directing the corporation to turn over its BBC1 and BBC2 transmitters to independent companies during late evening and early morning periods, so that a better public service may be provided?

I have no doubt that our determination that independent producers shall have reasonable access to television screens throughout the country has been one reason why companies have been active in recent months in entering into new agreements with their work forces and taking new steps to use the latest technology and equipment, thus reducing their costs. I agree with my hon. Friend that, so far, there has been more initiative shown by Channel 4 and the ITV companies in using the night hours, although the BBC is now starting a subscription service during the night for doctors.

"Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead."

When considering the use of independent film producers, will the Minister ensure that the IBA exercises its duty under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 and stops the practice of feature films being interrupted by advertisements in a highly arbitrary manner and not when natural breaks occur? Will the Minister ensure, too, that feature films made specifically for theatrical exhibition will not be interrupted in the devastatingly arbitrary way that the IBA permits, so breaching its statutory obligation?

The hon. Member raises an interesting point. It is solely for the IBA to monitor the insertion of advertisements within feature films. The Council of Europe"s draft convention suggests that feature films should be interrupted only once during the whole course of their transmission. That proposal worries British advertisers, but it is one that we shall consider and argue about in the weeks ahead.

Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past few weeks we have been subjected by all the TV channels to a diet of England losing at football and at cricket, but that when it came to England winning at Le Mans and Jaguar"s victory there for the first time in 32 years, there was no coverage because of the absence of any contractual arrangements between the media? We all look forward to independent producers who can bring success stories of that kind to our screens, which the public desperately want.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is interesting to note that at present independent producers are making a bid to handle the televising of Parliament, and I hope that that will be a success story as well.

It is clear that Britain can lead the world in this area of programme-making. Will the Minister get together with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that there is a thriving programme-making facility, not just in the south-east of England, but in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland?

I met members of the Independent Producers Association only yesterday. I assured them that we were anxious to ensure that regional production continues throughout the country—in Wales, Scotland and other parts of England—and is not just centred around WC2, with everyone taking lunch at the White Tower restaurant.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that all these so-called drama producers are told that the vast majority of people are fed up with their television sets producing four-letter words, men urinating into lavatories, and buckets of blood, all in the name of so-called realism?

Yes, Sir. It is precisely for that reason that we have set up the Broadcasting Standards Council and Sir William Rees-Mogg has taken on the difficult job of being its first chairman.

While I welcome the greater use of independent television producers to give variety to both national and regional stations, will the Minister encourage that on radio as well? To assist in the process, will the proposed new Channel 5 and the new commercial radio stations be run on the lines of Channel 4?

When the hon. Gentleman refers to Channel 5, I take it that he is talking about television and not radio. The answer is that that will not necessarily be so. This is one of the matters that we are examining, and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his speech last night, we must consider—outside the BBC—to what degree ITV channels and any new terrestrial channels should be subject to the same public service broadcasting obligations as now exist.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to involve the private sector in collaborative schemes of crime prevention following his recent initiative.

Crime Concern, the new national organisation for crime prevention, was launched on 23 May. One of its tasks will be to provide a national focus for private sector support for crime prevention. We shall also be expecting to see continued private sector support for individual local crime prevention projects, including some that will be established under the safer cities programme, and crime prevention panels have an important role too.

I welcome my hon. Friend"s initiative in this important matter. Will he in turn send a message of support to the Bury police, who have recently established in my constituency the Bury crime prevention panel, which will involve the community and the private sector in police activities? Is that not the sort of action that will translate his good intentions into good deeds?

The Bury police are showing a lead, and I shall write to them this afternoon.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the insurance schemes with low premiums for members of good neighbour and neighbourhood watch schemes, which have recently been introduced? Does he agree that such schemes provide a very good spur to membership of neighbourhood watch, and to crime prevention in general?

I welcome the actions of insurance companies that are giving a discount to householders and flat dwellers who live in the areas covered by neighbourhood watches of which they are members. I only wish that more insurance companies, would do the same.

Will the Minister ensure that those private sector schemes do not follow the arrangements that were set up for the collection of parked vehicles in Brighton? A tin-pot little company from the back end of Brighton was given a substantial contract and will now make a quarter of a million pounds a year collecting vehicles. That could have been done by the local police authority, and the ratepayer would have been the beneficiary. Why does the Minister not ensure that authorities keep such services in the public sector, so that the money can go to the real people, not just to a small group of people?

The private sector is more cost-efficient and cost-effective. That is why we welcome the involvement of more and more private sector companies in sponsoring crime prevention schemes.

While the Minister is considering the role of the private sector in crime prevention, will he be having new discussions with the brewers? As the Home Secretary and the Ministers have fulfilled their side of the bargain and delivered the Licensing Bill to the brewers, will he now, although late in the day, be having discussions with the brewers about alcohol-related problems and, in particular, about their pricing policy in public houses, which artificially inflates the cost of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks? Surely the events of recent weeks prove that the Government were wrong to push ahead with the Licensing Bill before tackling any of the problems of alcohol abuse.

I find it amazing that the hon. Lady seems to have overlooked the stiffening by the Licensing Bill of the provisions for the sale of alcohol. I thought that she welcomed that in the Standing Committee on the Bill. I also thought that the hon. Lady would want to join us in encouraging magistrates and licensing benches throughout the country to use the powers they already have to ensure that licenses are given only where they are appropriate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any recent representations on the provision of local public consultation on the establishment of bail hostels and similar residences for offenders in premises which do not require a change of use.

I have received representations about the decision by the Dorset probation committee to purchase The Pines hotel, Cecil road, Boscombe, Bournemouth, for conversion to use as a bail hostel.

The location of bail hostels, which is bound to be a sensitive issue in any locality, will incur greater opposition only where there has been no public consultation. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, consider issuing new guidelines to the probation service pointing out that it is essential to consult the local planning authority as well as the police authority on the location of such residences?

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend"s constructive suggestion, but we have 101 probation hostels of this sort in the country and it is a very long time since we have had any complaint at all from local residents about them. However, I appreciate the concern that is felt in his constituency and will certainly consider the very constructive suggestion that he has made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to encourage police forces to restructure their administrative systems in order that police officers" time might be used more efficiently.

My Department has produced practical suggestions for reducing the administrative burden on operational police officers, both by streamlining procedures and by introducing specialist support units. The West Midlands police increased the operational availability of police officers by 12·5 per cent. in one sub-division by such means and are extending the process. A number of other forces, including Humberside, have also made significant gains in efficiency. The recent Audit Commission report acknowledges that this approach has

"captured the imagination of almost the entire police service."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is desirable to lighten the administrative burden on police officers—which will perforce mean that they will spend more time on the beat—it will not solve entirely the problem of the 94 per cent. increase in crime on Humberside in the last 10 years, against which there has been a 1·5 per cent. increase in the police establishment? The community would like more police on Humberside. Can he hold out any hope?

The rise in crime on Humberside has been well above the national average, which my hon. Friend will have been glad to see has been decreasing. Only part of the answer lies in increased numbers of police and, although his figure about establishment is accurate, he will have noted that the strength of the force—the number of police and civilians available—has gone up by 235, which is just about 10 per cent.

Does the Home Secretary not think that the answer to his hon. Friend fits ill with the recent decision in respect of Durham county constabulary, where the county police committee saved enough money to employ 12 new officers on the beat and the right hon. Gentleman then refused permission so to use the money?

As the hon. Lady knows, we are in the middle of a further programme of expanding the police forces in England and Wales, which are now at a record level and steadily increasing. I recently announced, on top of the 300 extra police for London, 500 extra for the non-metropolitan forces. I am in touch with my colleagues about the right number for next year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed reform of Sunday trading.

Between 1 January and 14 June we received 153 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading, and 110 against. Ministers have also received various deputations, some for and some against Sunday trading.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a law that allows shopkeepers to sell gin but not dried milk, pornography but not the Bible, fresh fish but not canned sardines, is illogical, indefensible, frequently breached and rarely enforced? Does he agree that it is high time the law was changed?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I remember using similar examples two years ago when I tried to persuade the House to agree to the logical solution, which is deregulation. The House would not have it at that time. Now we are searching around to see whether opinion has changed about deregulation or whether there is some way in which we can move forward out of the intolerable position that my hon. Friend has described in a way that is acceptable to both Houses of Parliament.

To ask the Prime Minister what assessment was made, when Mr. Charles Powell was seconded to her Office as her private secretary for overseas affairs, of the implications of his role and authority in that capacity for his effectiveness in any future posting on his eventual return to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if she will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Did Mr. Powell really fail to tell the Prime Minister about the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Westland Law Officer"s leaked letter before the inquiry had reported?

As I have told the hon. Gentleman many times, I have nothing to add to the many answers and statements that I have given on this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the batty question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) shows that he has no clue about the qualities that are needed for such appointments? He knows perfectly well that he has no justification for the allegations he has been putting down on the Order Paper, which are a grave misuse of the procedure of the House.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is it not about time that the Prime Minister came clean with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the House and told the whole truth about the Westland affair, particularly in the light of the journal report this week which suggested that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Secretary of State for Defence, had made it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister was responsible for the leaked letter? Is it not time that the Prime Minister commented on that and told us the truth? It is her integrity that is being challenged by these proceedings and by the right hon. Gentleman"s comments.

I have answered innumerable questions and given extensive replies. I have nothing further to add.

When my right hon. Friend rightly drew a sharp contrast between the orderly and civilised city of Toronto——

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Father of the House, but this is a definitive question.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

This morning I returned from Canada. 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 President of West Germany.

Will the Prime Minister confirm a report in The Daily Telegraph of yesterday that she informed the Ottawa summit that she was now of the opinion that private affluence did not necessarily solve all society"s problems? If that conversion is true, will she have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) before she makes a complete fool of herself and the Tory party by her attempts to legitimise and justify the disgraceful actions of the ticket touts at Wimbledon?

First, the summit was not in Ottawa, but in Toronto. I do not know of anyone who thinks that affluence will solve all problems. People cannot know anything about human nature if they think that. Ticket touts at Wimbledon are not a matter for me.

Bearing in mind that today is the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the 10-month blockade of West Berlin by the Soviet Union, which led to the signing of the North Atlantic treaty, will my right hon. Friend affirm that, in spite of the changes in the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev, a strong NATO remains as essential as ever?

Yes. A strong NATO is our only sure defence. One of the reasons why we are able to welcome the bold actions of Mr. Gorbachev in trying to change the Soviet Union is that, whatever happens, our defence under NATO will be sure.

Will the Prime Minister support in Hanover next week the proposed study by the central bankers for a European independent central bank? Does she agree that that would be the mechanism whereby the freeing of capital flows would be a success, so that in the longer term United Kingdom domestic interest rates might come down to the OECD average?

No, not precisely that. Other things need doing, which I shall refer to in a moment. We can have a European central bank only when there is a united states of Europe under one sovereign Government, not under 12, and when all the countries have the same economic policy. That not being on the cards, I see no point in anyone studying a European central bank. There are points in having a number of central bankers and possibly Finance Ministers considering the composition of reserves and greater use of the ecu, but that is a different proposition from the one which the right hon. Gentleman has put, which would come about only with the dissolution of this House, among others.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the ruling of the European Court on rates of value added tax in the United Kingdom? Is this not another example of the loss of sovereignty that is part of the price that we have to pay for membership of the EEC? In view of her concern about the need to crack down on alcohol abuse, will my right hon. Friend take note that if there is harmonisation of taxes on alcoholic drinks, 18p will come off a pint of beer, the price of a bottle of wine will drop by 25 per cent. and a bottle of whisky will be a full third cheaper? What would that do for the sobriety of the nation?

As my hon. Friend is aware, following a statement in the House on Tuesday, that VAT judgment arose from a 1977 directive which must have gone through the House, or not have been objected to by the House, for it to become a directive. Therefore, the court was re-interpreting existing law. With regard to drink taxation, the Commission"s harmonisation proposals would require the unanimous agreement of all member states and could not be imposed against the will of the United Kingdom Government. We believe that these attempts to harmonise duties are misconceived and unnecessary, and we shall oppose them.

Is the Prime Minister aware that after the interest rate rise yesterday Mr. John Bannan of the CBI said:

"We do not believe the present medicine will have the desired results. It will have very serious side effects."

The most important thing is what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech:

"Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]

Clearly, the Prime Minister thinks that Mr. Banham and all who agree with him are wrong. Is it not obvious that the further increase in interest rates came because the Government have completely lost control of credit? [Interruption.] Having completely lost control of credit, the Prime Minister is making British industry pay the price, as usual. Why does she always do that? Is it any wonder, given those policies, that British industry has lost 20 per cent. of the international market and 30 per cent. of the British market? Why does the Prime Minister not give our producers a chance for a change?

Short-term interest rates are the essential instrument of monetary policy. If the right hon. Gentleman has no such instruments to control it, how does he ever expect to be able to keep inflation down? But then, of course, he never did. With regard to industry, may I make it absolutely clear that a 1 per cent. increase in wages costs industry four times as much as a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates. Wages went up by over 8½ per cent. last year.

If it is short-term interest rates that concern the Prime Minister, why have interest rates been higher for longer under her Government than under any other Government?

And inflation has been lower than the right hon. Gentleman"s party ever achieved in Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

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

Yesterday in Moscow I was asked to thank the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear it.

I was asked to thank the Prime Minister for the support that she has given the refusenik community. In doing so, may I ask her, in the course of her busy day—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Reading"] —to consider the plight of Vladimir Kislik who has been fighting for an exit visa since 1973? Does she agree that his condition is intolerable, and will she press the Russians to give him an exit visa?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing on those thanks. I am pleased to receive the message. Official consultations on human rights questions are taking place in Moscow today and the plight of Soviet refuseniks will, of course, be among the matters that are discussed. Our officials will be handing over a list of cases, which includes the case of Vladimir Kislik. His name was also on the list handed to Mr. Shevardnadze last year.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister explain this? A reply dated 9 June 1987 from her Office, on her personal notepaper, to a Mr. St. John from south London. described the system under which council tenants could have their tenancies transferred. She said that that would happen only if the majority of tenants expressed their support for it. Is she aware that the Housing Bill now before the House blatantly contradicts that commitment and allows a transfer even if the majority do not express their support? Will the Prime Minister honour her commitment of last year, reverse the U-turn and make sure that tenants" transfer is conducted under a democratic and proper system of voting?

I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants" co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations. The hon. Gentleman will be referring to housing action trusts—[Interruption.] In that case, may I have another look at it? I think that we have arranged for a block to be transferred only with a majority of those voting and for those who do not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most important rights that people have in this country is the resort to justice? The problem that arises is that if one is poor enough one may get legal aid, and if one is rich enough one may pursue a case to the end of one"s pocket. However, if one is in the middle, which the great majority of people are, one has little hope or right to justice because, unless one is willing to impoverish one"s family at a cost of a hundreds of thousands of pounds —as have some hon. Members—one cannot get it. Will my right hon. Friend accept, at long last, that this one great monopoly should fall, as other monopolies have fallen, because she believes that justice should he done for all?

Legal aid is widely available, often to those with incomes well above the national average. I think it is right that we should have a place where we draw the line. It would be quite wrong for everyone, automatically, regardless of means, to be able to get legal aid. A report of the review body on civil justice was published on 7 June. It has made recommendations that would make justice quicker, simpler, more cost-effective and more accessible to the public. The Lord Chancellor is at present consulting on those suggestions.