To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Conservative Family Campaign regarding teenage crime.

I have received two letters from the Conservative Family Campaign about young people's involvement in crime. I greatly welcome the growing interest in the role of the family in steering young children away from crime. The fact that the peak age for offending in this country is 15 underscores the truth that the family is our country's first line of defence. Parents and teachers have a clear responsibility to instil into children habits of self-discipline and respect for others.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to respond positively to the family campaign and say what action he will take in the light of its suggestions and recommendations? In so doing, will he welcome the emphasis that the family campaign puts upon the responsibility of parents in an age when we hear all too much about individuals' rights? Will he furthermore take the opportunity to confirm the Government's commitment to parents and to the concept of the family unit?

Yes, indeed, and I have tried to do that in my earlier answer and on several other occasions. I agree with my hon. Friend. As regards his first point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), will be receiving leaders of the campaign shortly to go through with them the specific proposals that they have made.

As the majority of teenage crime arises from bravado, should not retribution be swift, painful and humiliating? Could the Government look again at the possibility of introducing corporal punishment, or alternatively some humiliating punishment like the stocks in modern guise?

The House considered the matter not long ago. I remember the debate and I remember its conclusion. If the matter were put to the House again, I am not sure that it would reach a different conclusion. It is worth noting that as a result of the efforts that have been made the number of juveniles sentenced or cautioned has fallen substantially from 170,000 in 1984 to 140,000 in 1987.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it is often boredom rather than bravado which leads young people into mischief and crime? Is it not about time that he talked not just to Conservative party committees but to British local authorities which desperately want to supply leisure facilities and the creative leisure that the French are so much better at providing? Is it not about time that we took on an Eté Jeunes programme, which the French have and which has been so successful in reducing crime in French inner cities?

If the hon. Gentleman went up and down the country he would find a number of different organisations in Staffordshire and Humberside, for instance, where the police are putting into effect on the ground precisely the schemes that he wishes to encourage. That is already going on and I hope that the Labour party and Labour local authorities will do their best to encourage it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were fined for non-payment of television licence fees in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

The following information has been supplied by the national TV licence records office and relates to the number of convictions in each of the financial years 1 April to 31 March:

Bolton magistrates court tells me that these are by far the most miserable of all the fines that it has to collect as 60 per cent. of those fined are female, many of them single mothers with young children, and there are known cases of women having to resort to prostitution to pay their fines. Is it not high time that my hon. Friend brought in a subscription pay-as-you-view revenue system for the BBC instead of listening to Mr. Hussey saying that people like paying their licence fees to fund a grossly overstaffed BBC?

I listened with care to my hon. Friend. We accept that people with limited means may find it hard to pay the BBC licence fee. For that reason, we are doing two things. We are encouraging the BBC to develop other streams of income—for example, through subscription—and, from this September, we will introduce a pay-as-you-go instalment scheme. A successful pilot scheme has been run and, as from September, it will be possible gradually throughout the country for the television licence fee to be paid quarterly.

Is the Minister aware that many pensioners are caught up in this problem? The Government should be ashamed of themselves? [Interruption.] The Tories may laugh, but this is a serious matter for pensioners. We have asked regularly for all pensioners to be treated the same and to have a £5 television licence instead of the increase that the Government have introduced. Why do we not have fairness so that pensioners can keep themselves out of court and enjoy their later days? The Government are unfair to the elderly. Let us have the Minister at the Dispatch box saying that he will come my way.

The hon. Gentleman has not studied the Labour party policy review with the precise attention that I would have expected. The review says that the BBC licence fee is the core of the BBC's income for the future. To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would remove £400 million from the BBC. The only way to recoup that would be to put up the licence fee by about half for everyone else. The hon. Gentleman has not thought his argument through, but that is no surprise.

Does the Minister think that under the pressure of satellite broadcasting and commercial television the BBC's audience share might be so low that this method of financing would no longer be appropriate?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that as we are giving our blessing to a new terrestrial channel—Channel 5—to be financed by advertising and subscription, and in view of the number of satellite channels that are coming and the increasing success of cable, the BBC in its forward planning for the 1990s will be thinking carefully about what it should do if its audience share falls in the way suggested by my hon. Friend so that the continuance of the licence fee would be an intolerable burden on many households who are willing to look at channels other than the BBC.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning police provision in Leicestershire.

Twenty seven extra police posts were approved for Leicestershire in April so that a total of 54 have been approved since May 1979. In addition, some 130 police officers have been returned to operational duties as a result of civilianisation and other efficiency measures.

Is the Minister aware that one of the few areas in which the Members of Parliament for Leicestershire agree, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), is that we do not have nearly enough police, that the level of crime, which has doubled since the Conservatives came to office, is insupportable, and that it was wrong to turn down the applications of two successive chief constables for a considerable increase in the number of policemen? Is he aware that all Members of Parliament for the area have expressed in the House their view that it is not safe for people to go out at night in parts of Leicester because there are not enough policemen on the beat and that the Government's continued refusal to accept the recommendations of chief constables is unworthy and wrong?

I have good news for Leicestershire. As I have said, we have increased police posts by 54, a process of civilianisation has freed 130 officers for operational duties and that process is continuing. There is more good news. In 1978–79 expenditure on the Leicestershire constabulary was £15·65 million. In the current year it is £57 million—a huge increase. There is more good news. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have noticed that in 1988 there was a fall of 9·3 per cent. in sexual offences and 5·7 per cent. in burglaries. All that is good news and it is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not point out those facts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the recent announcement of an increase in police for Leicestershire has been widely welcomed, although it may not be an ideal figure? Will my hon. Friend congratulate the force on the tremendous strides that it has taken towards civilianisation? Is it not a fact that spending on police in England and Wales has been higher than spending on almost any other area of government during this Administration?

As one would expect from my hon. Friend, he has given a comprehensive summary of the position. I am sure that the House would like to know that spending this year, compared with the last year of the Labour Government, is 54·9 per cent. up in real terms—a huge increase. We never hear any mention of that from the empty Opposition Benches.

Order. We shall make slow progress if we have long answers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking steps to make parents responsible for the criminal activity of their children.

The great majority of the 100 or so letters that we have received in the past few months support the idea. Many specific provisions already existing in law are, however, little used. For example, the power to impose a curfew on juvenile offenders was used by the courts on only eight occasions in 1986 and 1987.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his ideas for greater parental involvement in the consequences of children offending has received widespread acclaim throughout Britain? Is it not a tragedy, however, that the powers of curfew have been so seldom used? Will my hon. Friend comment on the suggestion that that is because some probation officers have refused to co-operate in the implementation of such orders?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I greatly welcome the support in the majority of the correspondence that the Home Office has received for our radical and far-reaching new ideas to deal with offending by children. I am advised that there have been problems with some probation officers about co-operating with the courts. In 1985, the National Association of Probation Officers made it its policy not to co-operate with the courts in enforcing and supervising supervision orders. That is extraordinary because probation officers are officers of the court. If they will not fulfil their responsibilities, we may have to look for others who will.

Is the Minister aware that attempting to make parents somehow responsible for the criminal activities of their children is entirely superficial and misses the point? Is he further aware that there has been a most alarming upsurge in crime by adolescents in the United States in recent years and that within five to 10 years a similar situation will develop here because Britain is following closely the social and economic policies pursued in the United States? Should not the Minister go for a far deeper study of the causes of crime by adolescents in Britain rather than grasping at the chimeras offered by Conservative Members?

During the past year the ministerial group on crime prevention—on which 13 different Government Departments are represented—has been conducting an in-depth study of the causes of crime among children and young people. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is absolutely right that we must search for those causes. I do not believe, however, that the search would be aided by simply dismissing parental responsibility for the behaviour of children as something of no importance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the family is the first line of defence against crime by children.

Bearing in mind that many young children are drawn into crime as a result of addiction to amusement-with-prizes machines in arcades and that many parents, responsible and irresponsible, are involved in such distressing cases, will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider my Bill, which has support on both sides of the House and would give discretion to local authorities to ban under-16s from amusement arcades?

I know of my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in this important issue and of the way in which he has dealt with it in the proposals that he has put to Ministers and in his Bill. He is a model of how such a campaign should be conducted. We believe, however, that we should respond to the need for change in the criminal justice system when, to borrow my hon. Friend's phrase, there is clear evidence of a link between addiction and criminality. Independent research carried out by the Home Office's internationally renowned research and planning unit, which is independent in the way in which it conducts its business, supported by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, produced no evidence of such a link. If my hon. Friend and those who support him in his campaign can come forward with firm evidence we shall, of course, reconsider the issue.

May I ask the Minister to take more seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the reasons for child crime? Surely the suggestion that parents are responsible for all the criminal activity of their children is not a serious one, although it is a populist demand on the part of some Conservative Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]. There are many Members of Parliament whose children have committed criminal activities. We all know of next-door neighbours and so on whose children have carried out criminal acts. Parents are in no way responsible.

It is a superficial suggestion.

Exactly. Of course there is a connection between parents and their children's criminal activity up to a point, but it is a minor one. We must consider this issue much more carefully. I ask the Minister to ignore totally the irresponsible and populist demands that have been made by Conservative Members.

I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his well-known upholding of Christian values about which he has told this House on many occasions since I have been here, should feel that parents have no responsibility for their children. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, it is critically important to appreciate that the first and best line of defence against offending not just by juveniles, but by children under 10 who commit some 6,000 offences each year, are the parents. I believe that the country appreciates that. I entirely accept that a thuggish, 16-year-old young man may be difficult for a single parent to control, but I do not accept that the parent of an eight, nine or 10-year-old should be exonerated from providing care and attention.

rose—

Order. We are making extremely slow progress. I ask for brief questions and briefer answers to them.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that the peak age for criminal activity is school age. Much of that criminal activity takes place during school hours. Will my hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get schools to check that pupils are attending on a lesson basis rather than on a half-day basis and to ensure that education authorities speed up the process of taking parents to court when children are truanting? The court process should also be speeded up so that it no longer takes between 18 months and two years to bring a truanting child and his parents to court.

My hon. Friend makes three important points. Such discussions have taken place between my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science in recent months. In addition, we are delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked the National Curriculum Council to consider the inclusion of lessons on parenthood and responsibility in the national curriculum. That is an important suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any conclusions have yet been reached following the Cross report; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Cross delivered his arbitration on matters of dispute between the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Horserace Totalisator Board in 1979. We have had no reason to question the acceptance of the arbitration by both boards since then.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will realise that 10 years of peace are about to be broken. The proliferation of tote facilities at race courses is now seriously jeopardising on-course bookmakers. Ahead of privatisation, in the not-too-distant future, that proliferation could well result in a problem landing on my hon. Friend's doorstep. I ask him, therefore, to look seriously at the present acceleration in the siting of tote facilities at race courses which is driving away small bookmakers.

I have enjoyed more or less a decade of detente with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and I hope that hostilities are not about to break out over this of all issues, which we have discussed on several occasions in a variety of settings over the years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making towards reducing the level of crime in the Greater Manchester area.

In the first quarter of 1989, offences recorded by the Greater Manchester police fell by 4·5 per cent. compared with the same period in 1988. The two largest categories—burglary and theft, and handling stolen goods —fell by 14·6 per cent. and 3·1 per cent. respectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bury is one of the safest places to live in Greater Manchester, with a fall in recorded crime of 4·5 per cent. compared with last year's figures? Will he join me in saluting that achievement and in thanking the local police, who are obviously part of it, together with all those in the community who are promoting greater involvement—there are now 320 home watch schemes—and the local paper, the Bury Times, which has made the public aware of the greater dangers which face the elderly in particular?

I know that Bury, Bolton and several of the old Lancashire towns within the Greater Manchester police area have made great progress and have forged ahead. It is good news that there are now 8,000 home watch schemes in that police area. There must be some connection—a close connection I believe—between all the efforts that my hon. Friend describes and the fall in total recorded crime in the area not just in the first quarter of this year, but with last year's decrease of 8 per cent. compared with 1987.

I hope that when looking at the great progress that has been made in the Greater Manchester area my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded to go along the lines recently suggested especially in urging parents not to be responsible for their children's criminal activities. Does he agree that it is absolute nonsense not to hold parents responsible? I hope that my right hon. Friend will make that positive move in the rest of his work.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Exchanges earlier this afternoon have shown the wide interest and support for the general principle that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has floated.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made any recent studies of methods used in the United States of America in combating drink-related crime; and if he will make a statement.

Experience internationally—the failures as well as the successes—is taken into account as we work out policy. We have done a lot to tackle alcohol misuse here through crime prevention. We have also strengthened the powers of licensing justices and the law on sales to under-age drinkers, and I have approved experimental byelaws in seven areas to ban the consumption of alcohol in public places.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in response to rising drink-related crime among young people, every American state has now raised its legal drinking age to 21? Will he ensure that the lessons of that experience will be considered not only by his Department but by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which is chaired by our right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council?

I believe that my hon. Friend is right in saying that all the American states have raised the legal drinking age to 21, and I gather that a lively debate about that degree of prohibition is still in progress. I would rather ensure that our own law, under which the legal drinking age is 18, is enforced effectively, and that magistrates and police are reminded of the powers that they already have to deal with disorderly pubs or places where under-age drinking occurs. I agree, however, that we must keep an eye on what happens in the United States as a result of the change.

The Home Secretary knows that the work of his own research unit shows that disorder and drunkenness go together, not so much in the rural regions as in the non-metropolitan areas. That research was invaluable in pinpointing the sites of such disorder. In the light of what it has shown, will the Home Secretary do two things? First, will he talk to the traditional friends of the Conservative party—the brewers—about their advertising and about helping to enforce our existing drinking laws? Secondly, may I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to give local authorities and others involved in youth work the resources to provide young people with creative leisure, which—whatever the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) may say—they do not enjoy at present?

Of course my right hon. Friend the Lord President, as chairman of the ministerial group, is constantly in touch with the drinks industry, and we co-operate closely with the industry in such matters. The link between drinking and disorder which the hon. Gentleman has accurately described is contrary to the industry's interests, so it is naturally on our side.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as the brewing industry, that one of the American methods that he will not be studying is prohibition?

Indeed, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce further legislation to liberalise the licensing laws in England.

No, Sir, but we shall keep the position under review.

Following the success of the recent legislation, does my hon. Friend consider that there is a case for taking modest steps towards further liberalisation in the near future?

When we have seen such a case, we have taken steps. We do not see a case for further steps at present.

Does the Minister agree that what is needed now is not a further liberalisation of the licensing laws, but a tightening up of efforts to stop people who have been drinking in licensing hours from driving on our roads? Instead of introducing more time in which people can drink, should not more steps be taken to prevent them from endangering the lives of others and killing on the roads after drinking?

That is a very general point, and of course it is correct as far as it goes.

Is my hon. Friend taking steps to establish from the police the exact results of the liberalisation of licensing laws? Is he aware that—certainly in the south-west, and in particular in my constituency, where there have been a few moments of disorder at closing time in the past—the liberalising of licensing hours has been of enormous benefit, not only to people who have indulged in recreational drinking but to the police? Will he assure the House that he will report on the police attitude to the liberalisation that has already taken place?

The police attitude has been broadly favourable and along the lines outlined by my hon. Friend. That is also the feeling of the justices, in so far as they are able to make an assessment at present. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be conducting a survery of alcohol consumption and drinking patterns for the Department of Health in the autumn against which to measure the effects of longer opening hours, and I imagine that a summary of its conclusions will be made available to the House in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he has taken recently to prevent imports of the drug crack; to what extent organised crime is involved in crack imports; and if he will make a statement.

I take very seriously indeed the threat posed by cocaine and its derivative crack, not only to this country but to the whole of Europe. That is why I called the meeting last month of the Council of Europe's drug co-operation group, the Pompidou group.

I welcome that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that fighting organised crime before it gets a grip on Britain, particularly from the point of veiw of crack, is of the highest possible priority and that we may have to invest now to avoid serious outbreaks of crime in the future? Is he aware that hon. Members who were in Newark, New Jersey last year during the presidential election campaign were told that they should not leave the hotel for fear of being attacked by crack-crazed youngsters aged under 16?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Under-Secretary, who is chairman of the ministerial group on drug misuse, has visited the United States even more recently. All the information that he has come back with and everything that we have heard directly from the enforcement agencies in America confirms the anxiety that my hon. Friend voices. That is why we are taking such energetic action in time.

Is the Home Secretary aware that this is yet another example of seeing what was happening in the United States five years ago and projecting it on here? I asked a parliamentary question about crack some four years ago—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to think that this is a flippant subject. The Home Secretary must make sure that far more study of the problem takes place in the United States to anticipate what will happen in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that instead of making cuts in the number of Customs and Excise officers, he should increase the numbers of enforcement officers at the ports of entry to try to intercept this evil drug before it takes over our youth?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the number of Customs officers employed in this work—and he is right about their importance—has been substantially increased.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee will be visiting Washington and the United States next week to investigate this very subject. The members of that committee dare to go where others fear to tread, to see for themselves how the drugs menace has impacted on American society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our defences in this country are well prepared at airports and seaports, that our police and Customs are working well together and that while so far the seizures of crack have been low, we are preparing a plan to deal with the future?

That is exactly the position. We must, and we do, keep in touch with experience in the United States. Our defences must be in advance, beyond our shores, in America and in Europe on the cocaine and heroin smuggling routes. They must be at our ports and airports, and that is important in the discussion of 1992. They must be in our cities, with our police, and they must be in our schools and in our homes in persuading parents and children that these are routes not to happiness and power but to disgrace and misery.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's prison building programme.

Eight new prisons have been opened since 1985, seven are under construction and one, which has been converted from existing buildings at Banstead in Surrey, will open shortly. Five more are planned to start on site this year, and eight are at various stages of planning and design. The building programme also covers the expansion and improvement of existing establishments. By the end of this year nearly 2,000 new places will have been added to existing establishments in a period of less then two years. By the mid-1990s we will have added about 25,000 places to the system. The prison department directorate of works has also begun a five-year programme to provide over 6,500 cells with access to sanitation in addition to its ongoing programme of maintenance, improvement and renovation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently received representations, which I forwarded to him, from some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller)? They included one from a former prison chaplain who preaches at my local parish church and they concerned the serious problem of overcrowding in prisons. Does my hon. Friend recognise that such overcrowding is not tolerable in a civilised country such as we consider ours to be? The figures that he has given in his answer are most welcome. Will he continue these operations and consider alternatives to imprisonment for those convicted, and particularly for those on remand?

There are two important points here. Yes, there is overcrowding in the prison system, but it is very confined. There are about 50,000 people in the prison system, and 20,000 of them in the local and remand centres are overcrowded. The balance of 30,000 are not in any sense overcrowded in the circumstances in which they are living. The overcrowding of the 20,000 is a serious matter, but we have a whole range of policies designed to address that problem. Most specifically, we are building new places —25,000 between 1979 and the mid-1990s. I hope that we will have substantially eradicated the problem by the mid-1990s.

While congratulating my hon. Friend on the substantial number of new places in prisons, may I ask him if he will do all that he can to expand prison education, especially for people on remand, some of whom spend three years on remand and are then not convicted of anything? Secondly, is he not concerned about the large number of people in prison dormitories? Is not that a threat to security?

My hon. Friend raises a number of matters. I agree that some people have been on remand for far too long and we are taking urgent measures to reduce the number. My hon. Friend is right about dormitories. Broadly speaking, they are not a secure way of keeping prisoners and we are in the process of eliminating them. We are seeking to improve the provision of education in the prisons, and I am glad to say that the fresh start procedures that we put in place have greatly enhanced the provision of education in the prison system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage crime prevention in Norfolk; and if he will make a statement.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his attendance and on his question. The answer to his question is that crime reduction forms part of a strategy that applies to all of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased, crime concern was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate support and develop local crime prevention activity, and the largest-ever crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year. My right hon. Friend approved a further 24 police posts for the Norfolk force from 1 April. We give encouragement to the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels, and I am pleased to note that there are now 472 neighbourhood watch schemes in Norfolk, together with five crime prevention panels and three junior crime prevention panels.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police and all others in Norfolk who were involved in the very encouraging recent reduction in crime in that area and in Norwich? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a serious and continuing increase in violent crime? Will he do all that he can in discussions with the police and others in Norfolk to take further action to deal with that disturbing trend?

I certainly congratulate the Norfolk constabulary on its sterling efforts to reduce crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has introduced a lot of very original ideas and thinking about how to reduce violent crime. Indeed, most of my hon. Friends recognise that all the original thinking about crime prevention is coming from these Benches. Nothing is coming from the Opposition Benches and in particular from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who did not ask a question the last time we had Home Office questions and has not got on his feet once during this session either.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest available figures for the number of criminal offences recorded by police as having been committed in Humberside; and if he will make a statement.

In 1988 the Humberside police recorded 85,113 notifiable offences. This was a very welcome 4 per cent. fall from the previous year's figures.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the only category of crime that increased on Humberside last year was violence related to the consumption of alcohol? That being the case, will his Department encourage a whole range of schemes to tackle the problem of under-age drinking, which is endemic in many parts of this country?

We will certainly do all we possibly can and the whole Government, and I am sure the whole Conservative party, will support the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and his ministerial group on this issue.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

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.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to remind people of the importance of today's Euro-elections? Will she note the growing support by people in Northern Ireland for the Conservative party? Today they will have a chance to vote for Dr. Laurence Kennedy, our first-ever Conservative Euro-candidate in Ulster? Will she include him in her greetings to our candidates?

I have already sent the message of greeting and support which my hon. Friend seeks to our Euro-candidates. I agree that it is a very important election and a very important day and I hope that people will turn out in strength and vote. I note what my hon. Friend says about matters in Northern Ireland. I know her strong views about parties there, and I note what she says.

Why cannot the Prime Minister simply answer yes to the question, "Is the Chancellor going to retain his job after the forthcoming reshuffle?"

I answer on precisely what the Chancellor said on Wednesday of last week in the economic debate. The Chancellor set out the Government's position clearly and in some detail. he said:

"Our overriding"

"objective is to bring inflation back down."

Is that "gladly, joyfully, generously, fully, fully, fully" a refusal to guarantee the future of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I repeat what I said last week. If the right hon. Gentleman would like a little longer lecture I will read out the entire speech.

While the Leader of the Opposition regards all this as a joke, is it not about time that we all began to take the sterling situation rather seriously and that the Leader of the Opposition ceased to try twice a week to talk sterling down?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition is normally trying to help the speculators and talks sterling down in the most unBritish way.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that her policy of keeping interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary means that she will be prepared to tolerate a further increase in mortgage interest rates?

I repeat what the Chancellor said in his most excellent speech in the economic debate giving his policy very fully. He set out the Government's position and said:

"Our overriding"

"objective is to bring inflation back down."

"the policies that have successfully brought inflation down in the past … will do so again."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 264.]

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's main priority is to reduce inflation? Will she also condemn members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, for continually trying to talk the pound down?

Yes, I confirm once again that that is the Government's overriding priority, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the economic debate. We shall not be deflected from that course of action. I agree that the Opposition try to talk down the pound, which is a great tragedy.

Apart from the obvious and damaging effect that high interest rates have on the competitiveness of British industry, is it not a fact that the main effect of high interest rates, far from reducing aggregate demand, is simply to redistribute demand away from hard-pressed first-time mortgagors and other borrowers to people who are savers and creditors? If that is so, is this not an extremely unfair and ineffective way to reduce demand and counter inflation?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and short-term interest rates are the main instrument for dealing with it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those both inside and outside Parliament who continually delight in rubbishing the achievements of this country fail to grasp the inherent strength of the British economy? Do we not now have a record level of new job creation in Europe, enjoy a record high standard of living, and have a record repayment of the debts piled up by the Labour party when it last had muddled control of our economy?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a record high standard of living and a record high standard of social services.

And inflation.

No, the Labour party has the record on inflation this century, with a rate of 27 per cent. As well as the record high standards of living and of social services, we have record repayment of debt, and record standards of investment in manufacturing industry and of business investment. I could go on with record after record of good things for the British people—an excellent record.

How do the Government intend to clean up our rivers and beaches if they refuse to give the National Rivers Authority the powers to prosecute the regional water companies after they have been privatised?

Both our rivers and our beaches are being cleaned up, contrary to what happened during the time of the Labour Government. The directive from Europe came out in 1975, and it asked Governments to identify beaches that did not come up to standard. By 1979, the Labour Government had not identified one. It was left to us to identify them all. We have done so. Two thirds have already been dealt with and the other one third will soon be dealt with. As to rivers, 95 per cent. are classified, on European standards, as good or fair, which is the best record in the Community.

To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the European Commission.

I receive a number of such representations.

Whatever else divides the two major parties, is not one thing crystal clear, and comes out in representations concerning the European Community? It is that the overwhelming majority of the House insists that this House, representing the people as it does, must retain its untrammelled power over taxation. Were we to subscribe to a central European bank or a common currency, the House would lose the right, uniquely sustained over many centuries, democratically to control economic policy. Is that not why public opinion in this country is so different from that in other parts of the Community?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the ability to run monetary, economic and fiscal policy lies at the heart of what constitutes a sovereign state. I very much agree with him that the rights and powers of national Governments and Parliaments in these matters must be preserved. That is what this Parliament is for. We must resist the constant centralising tendency of the European Community.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the House has made representations to the Government about the Commission's proposals for all-European television rules? is she aware also that at 3 am on Tuesday the House debated those rules, when it became clear that the decision whether a certain pornographic television channel which is transmitted in a member state, which I shall not name, becomes a legal transmission in Britain will be made by a majority vote? When the Prime Minister placed the Single European Act before the House, was she misled by others about its possible effects and potential? Was the right hon. Lady misled by the Commission or the Foreign Office, or is there some other explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is nothing misleading about the Single European Act. Greater majority voting in some spheres was clearly on the face of the Act, and he knows that. There is a question about interpretation with regard to one or two matters. Unanimous voting on certain matters was also clearly on the face of the Act. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well.

On 27 June nearly 40 years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, in his matchless prose, made a declaration on behalf of the Conservative and Liberal parties that

"national sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together."—[Official Report, 27 June 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2159.]

Every time we sign a treaty of international agreement we are voluntarily engaging in a certain pooling of sovereignty. That has been so almost ever since Parliament began and the first treaty was signed. When we went into the Common Market we agreed to pool our sovereignty on such things as the common agricultural policy. Hitherto it was negotiated completely through Europe. We agreed to pool all our rights in trading with other nations and henceforth the Community conducted our trading negotiations through the Community and the Commission. There are other occasions where one pools one's sovereignty. To revert to what I was asked about earlier, taxation policy, economic policy and monetary policy go to the heart of the rights of this place, to the heart of representations by the people and to control of the Executive, and that is one of the reasons why the House exists.

What pathetic, miserable and whingeing excuses is the Prime Minister going to offer the country for her party's humiliation in the Euro polls today?

I know that all our supporters will come out and vote strongly for our sort of Europe. I note that Opposition Members were not sufficiently confident in the results to come and question me in the House this afternoon. They had to run away. They felt that if they did not do so their supporters might not come out.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

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

If any members of Tonge Moor Conservative club have not heeded Mr. George Handley's excellent advice to be sure to vote today, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remind them that the students in Peking are dying for democracy and that we should all go out and vote for the winning party, the party with more jobs, more exports, more productivity and more investment?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This Conservative Government have created a strong Britain whose reputation rides high because we have put the economy in order. Voting Conservative today will help to create a strong Europe, and a strong Britain in a strong Europe, which pursues the same policies that have been so successful in this country.

Is the Prime Minister aware that nothing so clearly reveals the dead trouble that she is in over sterling than the pathetically orchestrated series of questions about the Leader of the Opposition talking down sterling? Is she not aware that the persistent bickering between her and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her pathetic record on inflation and the balance of payments are driving down sterling? The Prime Minister's policies and her failure to deal with that situation in the markets in Europe are on trial.

The hon. Gentleman has provided evidence of what we were complaining about earlier. The Opposition are out to write sterling down. Once again, he is at it, and his hon. Friends cannot leave it alone.