To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to increase the number of special constables; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of special constable recruiting.

At the end of 1989, there were 15,589 special constables in England and Wales. I am very keen to see an increase. With that objective, there will be a national, centrally funded recruiting campaign and sympathetic consideration will be given to the possibility of a special payment, or bounty, on an experimental basis.

That is good news and I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he consider improving allowances? Many people feel that a bounty is not in keeping with the volunteer spirit of the specials. In what ways does my hon. Friend think that specials should be made more use of than at present?

My hon. Friend is right to imply that there is a difference of views about a bounty and that is why we are thinking about it thoroughly. If it can be useful in increasing the number of special constables, we should want to try it out. Expenses have been improved recently, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions about out-of-pocket expenses that are not covered properly under the present system, I should like to hear them. He is also right in believing that not all forces use special constables as imaginatively as they might. Those that use them well get enormous benefit. I am thinking of the specials' particular role in crime prevention advice and in supporting neighbourhood watch schemes. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.

I remind the House that it is fairer to other hon. Members if one question is asked at a time. We then get further down the Order Paper.

I thank my hon. Friend for his full and complete reply, such as we have grown used to receiving from him. Will he comment a little further on recruiting, expecially among the ethnic communities? Will he also speculate on the improvements that might take place within the specials were their training to be stepped up? I understand that currently, they support the regular police, but they could do a great deal more if their training was a little deeper and more extensive than is currently the case.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks and I shall welcome them by being short rather than long in my answer. Much can be done on training, and the imaginative use that some forces have been able to make of the specials is a result of having trained them for those roles.

Will the Minister give a firm assurance that the effort to recruit more special constables will not be allowed to dilute the efforts being made by all police forces to recruit from the ethnic minorities, as such recruitment remains extremely disappointing?

No, the effort will not be used in that way. The ethnic minorities are better represented among the special constables than in the police force at large. One characteristic of the special constabulary is that many of its members go on to become regular policemen. We have had some recruitment efforts among the ethnic minorities. I am thinking especially of Tooting, where the increase in numbers was large as a result. There is a great deal that can be done and in some places, it is being done. We are trying to urge other forces to copy that good example.

Are there any plans to increase the number of special constables, to protect the Secretary of State for Scotland from the righteous anger of the Scottish people, after his failure to defend our interests in Cabinet and his unwillingness to come to the House to explain his position?

People in Scotland are much more law abiding and sensible than the hon. Gentleman implies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Police Federation is strongly opposed to the introduction of bounties because it believes that specials would then be used as cheap labour in preference to the use of regular constables? Is my hon. Friend further aware that the federation would strongly support financial recompense to specials who lose earnings as a result of having to give evidence in court?

We are very much aware that that opinion is widespread in the Police Federation and that is why we would not begin to pay bounties to all special constables. If we moved ahead at all, we should want to experiment to see whether the idea was effective in recruiting and did not dilute the motives of those who join.

Is the Minister aware that the recruitment of specials is closely linked to final recruitment into the regular police force? Is he further aware that the Government's latest act, reneging on what many of us believe to be a sacred agreement on arbitration, will mean that the Government will be unable to recruit not only special constables, but any constables?

I do not think that that will have any effect on the recruitment of special constables, for reasons that have already been made clear. At present, special constables receive only out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, the idea of rent allowances does not weigh with them at all.

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

At the end of December 1989 there were estimated to be over 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering more than 4 million households, compared with 64,000 at the end of December 1988—an increase of 26·5 per cent.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that most impressive answer, which shows the great popularity and success of neighbourhood watch schemes. Does he agree that his answer shows the important role of such schemes in crime prevention, which justifies the encouragement that the police give to those schemes and the commitment of substantial police resources to ensure that they prosper and continue to provide the services that they have provided already?

There is not the slightest doubt about the important role that neighbourhood watch schemes play in crime prevention. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Eight schemes now operate in Fulham, covering more than 2,500 households, and I hope that there will be more schemes there shortly.

How is the information about neighbourhood watch schemes centrally collated? What is the measure of their effectiveness?

I do not think that we have any difficulty in collating information as a result of inquiries made of the police. Obviously, the effect of particular schemes depends to a large extent on the enthusiasm of the participants. I could cite many examples of schemes where one can show without peradventure that after their being set up there was a decline in crime in the area, particularly in burglary.

Given my right hon. and learned Friend's natural and very proper support for neighbourhood watch schemes, can he justify to the House a cut in the Wiltshire constabulary's budget for vehicles, plant and equipment of more than £800,000 for next year, when that money could reasonably have been expected to do much to support neighbourhood watch schemes in my constituency?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been an 80 per cent. rise in real terms in expenditure on vehicles, plant and maintenance since 1979. That is just one sign of the enormous increase in resources made available to the police since this Government came to office.

While I welcome growing citizen interest in neighbourhood watch and business watch schemes, does the Home Secretary accept that they are no substitute for public demand to see more officers with their feet on the beat? Does he recall that that was a major finding of a recent Police Federation survey? How does he intend to respond to that clear expression of public opinion?

The hon. Gentleman should make known his new enthusiasm for neighbourhood watch schemes to Labour authorities that have persistently obstructed the setting up of neighbourhood watch schemes in their area. I hope that he will go straight out of the Chamber and ring Cleveland county council and Stockton, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh borough councils. After he has done that and shown his determination to see more neighbourhood watch schemes set up, he can come back and ask further questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to protect prisoners from contracting hepatitis B.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to replies given on 2 March 1990 to previous questions tabled by him. I have nothing to add to those answers.

After the sad death of one of my constituents from hepatitis B, does the Minister agree that now is the time to start collecting statistics from our prisons to establish the high incidence of hepatitis B among the prison population generally? Does he accept that as the disease is 100 times more virulent than HIV and as immunisation is available by vaccine, we should take urgent action to vaccinate prisoners and staff against it and to collect reliable statistics?

I am aware of the sad case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with him at greater length, if he cares to come to see me. We take the most careful medical advice from the prison medical service and act on its advice in any cases where, for instance, it advises vaccination either of staff or of prisoners, if a vaccine is available. I shall be only too happy to discuss all the details of the matter with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to be worried about the issue, on which I assure him that the prison medical service is particularly active.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the recommendations of the chief inspector of prisons on national prison hospitals, with regard to hepatitis B and HIV, have been fully implemented and recognised?

Yes, indeed. We take seriously the professional advice that we receive and, in particular, the role of the chief inspector of prisons, whose job is to cast an objective eye over that and all other aspects of running the prison service.

As the Minister is so ready to take advice, will he also consider the advice of the joint committee on vaccination, which recommends vaccinating all high-risk people, including staff and prisoners?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it all turns on the definition of high risk. We certainly have a policy of taking advice from the prison medical service. Anyone whom it wishes to see vaccinated as part of its clinical discretion, and who agrees to be vaccinated, can be. It is always a matter of judgment how far one should go in categorising people independently of the individual judgment of a medical officer. I repeat that we are willing to have our arrangements tested against any independent advice to which hon. Members may have access.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; what it was one year ago; and what projections he has made for the prison population over the next five years.

The prison population in England and Wales on 16 March 1990 was 47,115. The corresponding figure for 17 March 1989 was 49,837, a reduction of just over 2,700.

Given that we have an unacceptably high prison population in the United Kingdom, the results of which I see in Dartmoor prison, what steps is my hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that the lowest number of people are sent to prison, while reflecting the seriousness of the crimes committed, and that we are not merely falling into the habit of sending people to prison because we have no better way of dealing with them?

As my hon. Friend knows, no Government have done more than this one to develop non-custodial penalties that offer the courts a wide range of viable alternatives to custody. That process has been taken a stage further in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's recent White Paper. My hope and belief is that as further arrangements become available, the courts will make increasing use of them so that the prison population will increasingly comprise only those who undoubtedly, on any judgment, deserve imprisonment. It will always be a difficult balance to strike, but we are taking great steps in that proper direction.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm publicly that community service, as proposed in the White Paper, will not be seen or used as a soft option to imprisonment? Will he also reaffirm that there is no question of anybody who has been convicted of a violent crime being allowed to remain on the loose in the community and that, when it is used, community service will be rigorous?

The first point that needs to be made absolutely clear is that the courts have ample powers to punish violent offenders. Most people will continue to believe, as we do, that violent offenders will usually merit a custodial sentence for the protection of the public. However, equally, we have nearly 20 years' experience of community service. Community service is rigorous: it means work for the community's benefit. Under the guidance of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), national standards are now being promulgated. Our community service scheme leads the world. It is not a soft option. It ensures that those convicted of offences put something back into the community.

On the question about the current prison population, is not the Minister ashamed of the Government's performance when dealing with young remand inmates, some of whom, according to the chief inspector of prisons, are living in unacceptable conditions in prison, and being denied sufficient education and exercise? Some are even locked up for 20 hours a day. What does the Minister say to that?

First, nobody is remanded in custody without the courts being satisfied that that person cannot safely be left at liberty. Remand should be an option of last resort. To begin with, therefore, those youngsters are in remand because of things that they are alleged to have done and because the courts lack confidence in their ability to behave themselves while awaiting trail.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners held in police cells; and what it was one year ago.

On Friday 16 March, there were no remand prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales. That compares with 182 people held on 17 March 1989, most of whom were on remand.

Will my hon. and learned Friend congratulate the prison service on achieving the end of that use of police cells? How are his deliberations on the use of private companies to construct remand centres progressing? Does he agree that there are several good models in the United States, where the remand centres are located in cities, close to the courts and to the families who wish to visit the prisoners, and much more convenient for the purposes of transportation? When will my hon. and learned Friend be able to tell us that he has reached a verdict on those considerations?

Obviously, it is important that, as far as possible, no prisoners are held outside purpose-built prisons. I am glad to say that as a result of a combination of factors—not least the Government's commitment and willingness, unlike the Labour Government, to make resources available—it has been possible to achieve that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Birmingham city council on the Birmingham pub bombings.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

I am not aware of recent representations from Birmingham city council about the Birmingham pub bombings case. I have not sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

I am a little surprised by that answer, because I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had received a delegation from Birmingham. What is the purpose of this further, fifth and, I hope, final police inquiry, when it is understood by the Home Office, whole sections of the police force and the judiciary, that there will be eventual freedom for the Birmingham Six? In those circumstances, is not it disturbing that the Birmingham Six should remain imprisoned and branded as guilty when procedures are being set in motion for, I hope, their release?

Justice demands that innocent men should go free; it also demands that guilty men should stay in gaol. Claims have been made, and the object of the exercise is to determine whether there is any substance to them. I have asked the chief constable of the West Midlands police to report on a number of specific points that were put to me recently, and he has decided to ask the Devon and Cornwall police to consider those matters. The basic question is still whether the representations made to me constitute new evidence relevant to the safety of the convictions.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that one of the principal obstacles to the case being referred back to the Court of Appeal is the implacable hostility of the Lord Chief Justice? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the resignation or the early retirement of the Lord Chief Justice would be a small price to pay for justice being achieved in this case?

That is one of the most preposterous and irresponsible statements that I have ever heard in the House. Incidentally, I am amazed by the sheer irresponsibility of the hon. Gentleman who, while protesting his concern for the Birmingham Six, has steadfastly refused to reveal material that he claims would prove their innocence. Must we wait for another novel from him?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks of many Conservative Members for the open-minded way in which he accepted the new evidence presented to him before Christmas? Is he aware that the fact that someone else will be investigating the matter with an open mind is largely welcome? If something sinister appears, will he reconsider asking the Court of Appeal to examine the case again, once the Devon and Cornwall police have finished their inquiries?

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend put his question. As I said, the basic question is whether the matters that have been put to me constitute new evidence that casts doubt on the safety of the convictions. If, as a result of those inquiries, matters are put to me that convince me that new evidence casts doubt on the convictions, I shall take appropriate action.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House the nature of the fresh evidence that has been provided and upon which he has asked the police to report? Can he assure the House that the police will conduct the further inquiry as rapidly as possible, consistent with examining the evidence thoroughly?

I wish that I could help my hon. Friend on his first point, but I do not think that it would be proper for me publicly to disclose all the matters that I have asked the chief constable of the West Midlands to consider. However, I take my hon. Friend's second point—these are important matters that should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and I am sure that the police realise that.

Given the various disturbing factors that have come to light since the original jury trial of the Birmingham Six, will the Home Secretary say whether, in his professional experience and judgment, the new evidence leads him to believe that if it had been given to the original jury they would have found differently? Will he be guided by the informed opinion of Lords Scarman and Devlin and concede that there may well have been a miscarriage of justice in this case?

I think that I have already answered that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the difficult task that I have to perform when material is put before me is to come to a conclusion about whether it constitutes new evidence which casts doubt on the safety of the convictions. That is the task which I am trying to perform to the best of my ability.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a simple answer to all this? If the Birmingham Six are innocent, and I say "if" because I have no way of judging, would not the simple answer be for those who are campaigning for them to be released—the IRA—to supply us with the names of those who did the bombing?

One does not have to go as far as the IRA—one can ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He says that he knows all about these matters, but he has steadfastly and irresponsibly refused to give the authorities the information that he says will help.

First. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the decision that he announced yesterday—not least because there is a general wish throughout the country, particularly in Birmingham, for the men or women who were genuinely responsible for the pub bombings to be convicted and imprisoned, rather than those whom it is increasingly believed are not guilty. Does he understand that having set out on that course—I repeat my congratulations on that—there can be no going back and that having begun with a limited inquiry he now cannot avoid a comprehensive and complete inquiry? He should understand that his impartiality on this matter will be better understood and appreciated if he attempts to answer questions from Opposition Members in a way that is appropriate to a Home Secretary.

I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman's last reference had nothing to do with the Birmingham Six, but was a reference to my reply about neighbourhood watch schemes—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If it referred to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I certainly do not need to defend myself about that—it is time that the hon. Member recognised his responsibility as a Member of this House. I should have thought the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would also know that.

The Home Secretary should sit down—he does not own the place.

Order. We often hear things in the House with which we do not agree.

I shall address myself now to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, which might have been better if he had not gone on to subsequent matters. The issue is a simple one: material has been put before me and I must determine whether it constitutes new evidence that casts doubt on the convictions. I am entitled to seek what advice I can in order to come to a proper conclusion about the matter. That is what I was about when I addressed certain questions to the chief constable of the West Midlands. One should not conclude from that that it is necessary to have another inquiry.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the progress of his policy on developing parental responsibility for juvenile crime.

Our proposals were set out in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", published in February. We intend to strengthen courts' powers to require parents to attend court with their children and to bind the parents over. The parents' means would be taken into account in fixing the level of any fines for the children's offences and parents would normally be ordered by the courts to pay the fines. We have already received some encouraging responses to the proposals.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary to make irresponsible parents more conscious of their responsibility for the criminal activities of their children? Does he also agree that, as the peak age of offending is 15, it is not good enough for some parents to expect schools to be totally responsible for the discipline of their children out of school hours?

My hon. Friend is right. It is a very sad fact that young people sometimes appear in court with no parent alongside them. The courts ought to have a duty to order parents to attend unless it would obviously be unreasonable so to do. The whole House, I am sure, will agree that in deciding what is an appropriate financial penalty to impose on a young person the court should have power to bear in mind the parents' means.

Would that also apply to Members of this House? Over the years, children of many hon. Members—on both sides, but especially on the Conservative side—have got themselves into drug problems, and so on, through no fault of the parents, Members of Parliament probably being away from home all week? Will a Member of Parliament be held responsible for everything that his children do? I have never heard such a preposterous suggestion?

The hon. Gentleman should look at the specific proposals. If he examines them individually he will find it very hard indeed to quarrel with them. Obviously there are cases—probably many cases—in which children get into trouble and it is quite impossible to say that the fault lies with the parents, but equally, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, it is preposterous for parents whose children get into trouble to say that it is nothing to do with them and that they need not even bother to turn up at court.

I welcome the accent placed by my right hon. and learned Friend on parental responsibility, but I wonder whether he agrees that there is a place for parental responsibility in relation to community service orders. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to strengthen community service orders and to increase their importance in the treatment of young people who have committed crimes. Might not an obligation be imposed on parents to ensure their children's attendance under the scheme?

I am not sure about the obligation, but there is a very strong case for expecting those responsible for community service orders to make it clear to the parents what is involved and to encourage them to take the very closest interest in the punishment being meted out to their children.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable he intends to introduce for the removal of juveniles from Hull B wing.

Some relief may be provided by a new local authority secure unit due to open in Hull in mid-1991, and a new remand centre at Everthorpe will be ready early in 1992. Until these are available, there is no feasible alternative to the use of B wing at Hull prison for juveniles on remand.

Is the Minister aware that the conditions in which young people are being held in B wing are the most ghastly, for adults or juveniles, in virtually the entire prison system in this country? Is not it about time that a civilised country stopped putting people under 17 into prison at all, whether on remand or to serve sentences? Will the Minister please make it a personal compaign to have Hull B wing closed as soon as possible?

I return to the point that it is a very exceptional course for the courts to remand juveniles in custody. This is done only when the courts are satisfied that there is absolutely no alternative. We are most anxious to improve this aspect, as well as every other aspect, of our prison stock. I am glad to be able to say that, last week, the number of juveniles held in Hull B wing was down to eight. I hope that it will be possible to maintain that low figure, but I repeat that we have had to address serious deficiencies in the prison building stock across the board. It has not been possible to deal with all problems at once, but there will be new remand arrangements and I hope that within the next two or three years these will remove the necessity to use Hull.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now collect information on prosecutions and convictions in sufficient detail to identify the sex of victims in each police force area in England and Wales.

We have no present plans to do so. The sex of the victims is already known in homicide cases and sexual offences. Domestic violence is a very wide term which can cover a number of different offences. I can announce today that we are preparing new guidance for the police, for issue in the early summer, in which we shall suggest that all domestic violence cases should be recorded in exactly the same way as all other violent offences. It will also emphasise the need for comprehensive local record-keeping so that every officer who attends a domestic violence incident will have up-to-date information about any previous incidents and can thus accordingly remove the victim to safety and deal suitably with the alleged offender, as I am sure the House would want. A crime is a crime whether it is committed in the home or elsewhere.

I am grateful for that reply. Unfortunately, the Minister did not quite answer my question, which did not relate to domestic crime. I asked him about violent crime generally. As the fear of crime is greatest among women, should not the figures for crime against women be available both nationally and locally so that there can be a properly targeted response?

If the hon. Gentleman reads question No. 24 carefully, he will find that I answered it exactly. It is necessary for the police to collect statistics only when it is necessary for the police to collect them. Otherwise I should prefer the police to be out preventing and detecting crime and protecting women.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities still refuse to allow neighbourhood watch signs to be erected on their property.

Although we do not have a comprehensive record of the local authorities concerned, I am sorry to have to report to the House that some local authorities, including Cleveland county council and Stockton, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh district councils, have refused planning permission for the erection of neighbourhood watch signs. Authorities have power to refuse planning permission only for signs on highway land since the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987 gave deemed consent for the erection of signs relating to properly approved neigbourhood watch schemes, which were not to be placed on highway land.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement that he has had to make is a disgrace? When it came to something positive that those local authorities could do to help to fight crime, they did not bother. Is not it notable that all the authorities concerned are run by the Labour party, which seems not to care about crime?

My hon. Friend, characteristically, has put his finger right on the matter. I wish only that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition, who was here to hear my hon. Friend's supplementary question, would write to those Labour-controlled councils and ask them to support neighbourhood watch and not to attack it.

Does the Minister agree that the action of four local authorities is hardly justification for such an outburst of synthetic anger from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)? Would not it be better to put more police men on the beat to patrol the streets rather than people having to rely on self-policing because of inadequate police resources?

The list that I gave was rather modest. I could have added some London boroughs such as Hackney and Haringey, which are not exactly helpful towards neighbourhood watch schemes. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that in the past 10 years we have seen nearly 15,000 more policemen on the streets—there are more to come—and another 10,000 civilians supporting the police. If only we could discover the Labour party's policy towards law and order and how much it would cost in this new world of phantom politics, we should be better informed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents are fortunate not to live in Socialist boroughs? Is he aware that the boroughs of Elmbridge and Guildford positively welcome neighbourhood watches, as do the Metropolitan and Surrey police? The importance of neighbourhood watches is community concern about crime prevention instead of reliance on the police. The police are grateful for the help that community and neighbourhood watch schemes provide.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and, through him, the boroughs that he represents and the Surrey and Metropolitan police on their positive attitude. We now have 81,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, and the number is rising fast. They are strongly supported by the police, by the excellent organisation Crime Concern, and by the Home Office's safer cities unit. Alas, they are not strongly supported by the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to support victims of crime and what compensation is available to them.

In this financial year £3·7 million has been granted for local victim support schemes in England and Wales, and the amount will increase in the coming financial year. On 22 February 1990 my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced the publication of the new victims' charter. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend has announced extra staff and expenditure for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Our criminal injuries scheme is more generous and reaches more victims than any other in the western world.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer will he warmly welcomed by the many people who have been victims of crime because for far too long there has been a feeling that too much time is spent worrying about trying to justify the cause of the criminal rather than caring for and helping the victims who have suffered? Will he assure the House that any claims for compensation will be dealt with as swiftly as possible so as to minimise the continued suffering of victims of crime?

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has exactly summed up my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's policy towards crime and punishment. My right hon. and learned Friend wants to put the victim first and the proper punishment of the criminal second, and to make those two things paramount in his policy. We are doing all that we can to ensure that those who deserve proper compensation from the most generous victim compensation scheme in the western world get that compensation as quickly as possible.

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

'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 have further meetings later today. This evening I shall speak at a dinner of the Royal Society, along with the Prime Ministers of Norway and Sweden, to conclude the international conference on surface water acidification.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome for the Government's determination to encourage saving and, in particular, for the Chancellor's announcement of the big increase in capital which may be held before people are no longer eligible for community charge rebates and housing and other benefits?

My hon. Friend makes his own point. This was a vital part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's very popular Budget for savers. It is right to recognise the conscientious efforts of people who have saved over the years especially for their retirement, and that is precisely what the Budget does.

I welcome the fact that the Government have made a positive response to the demands that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made to the effect that retrospective payments should be given to people in Scotland who were denied poll tax rebates because of their modest savings. May I say, however, that this is ignominious retreat by Her Majesty's Government still deals with only one of the multitude of injustices in Scotland, England and Wales arising out of the poll tax?

No. The community charge will be very popular—[Interruption] with people living alone, such as widows and widowers, who for years have paid high rates and who will be far better off paying a fair and reasonable community charge. Those people—often people who have saved all their lives—have been ignored by Opposition Members.

Order. This is a matter that the House wishes to hear about.

He will be considering with colleagues and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how a simple and workable scheme—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is anxious to hear the details of what the Prime Minister has to say. She must be given an opportunity to say it.

They will consider how a simple and workable scheme of ex gratia payments can be devised. It will be a scheme administered and funded by the Scottish Office from within its existing resources. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] My right hon. and learned Friend will report the proposals to the House as soon as the details of a Scottish scheme have been fully worked out. I stress that the scheme is an ex gratia one—[Interruption.]

Order. These are important matters.

What about a statement?

I stress that the scheme will be an ex gratia one. No new legal rights to retrospective payments will be created. There could be no new legal rights on a major statement in a Budget going far wider than the community charge, so the arguments that Ministers have made against formal retrospection stand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that as soon as the scheme is fully worked out after consultation he will make a full statement to the House.

In view of what the Prime Minister has just said and the interest on both sides of the House in the arrangements that the Government are making, why could not the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the House today and make a statement? Is it simply that he is afraid to acknowledge plainly the Government's gross incompetence?

I note that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the excellent proposals that we have made in the Budget were gross incompetence. They were in fact very good and very generous and could not possibly have been announced when a Labour Government were in charge of the economy.

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

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

When the law makers opposite become law breakers and stick to their campaign to encourage people not to pay the community charge and to break the law, as part of which they have invited leading highly paid pop stars to the Palace of Westminster next Monday, is that not a disgusting and highly irresponsible example to set the young people whom we represent?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is totally and utterly wrong to break the law, and very wrong to encourage by example young people to break the law. I trust that the Leader of the Opposition will disown this latest manifestation of intent to break the law—or does he depend too much on the 30 hon. Members whose action has made it clear that they should not belong to the Labour party?

On the question of competence, is the Prime Minister aware that, of all the Prime Ministers I have seen in the House, none has ever given a more incompetent performance than hers in answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition? Is not it true that the total value of the poll tax rebate concession in 1990 will be £120 million and that, proportionately, Scotland should receive between £10 million and £12 million but as today's so-called concession is worth only about £4 million the Prime Minister is robbing Peter to pay Paul? What has she got against the Scottish people that she must add insult to injury?

The figure of £4 million is correct. I have mentioned the generous arrangements per head for Scotland with regard to public expenditure. With regard to the community charge, the aggregate Exchequer grant to Scotland towards local expenditure, plus the business rate, meets 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure. In England the aggregate Exchequer grant, plus business rate, meets only 70 per cent. of local authority expenditure. Scotland is far better off than England with regard to help from the taxpayer for local authority expenditure.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Thursday 22 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the comment made last week by the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that not only is manufacturing output in this country at an all-time record level but exports are rising twice as quickly as world trade generally? Our share of world trade is also rising, and we now export more per person even than Japan. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the vast majority of British business men that the one way to put that trend disastrously into reverse would be to adopt the high-taxation, low-incentive and high-spending policies of the Labour party?

Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that last year manufacturing output reached an all-time record, as did manufacturing investment. This morning's trade figures show that since December our exports rose by 11 per cent. over last year's figure. Our imports are stable, which provides further clear evidence that the deficit is narrowing and that our policies are working. I note that under the last Labour Government manufacturing production actually fell.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who led the campaign to get justice——

Order. I am not certain that that falls within the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Will the Prime Minister, as she is responsible—[Interruption.]

Order. Come on, please.

Will the Prime Minister recognise that many people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will feel that it is unfair that they have been unable to claim rebates on their rates this year because they have more than £8,000? Will she examine the injustice of that as well?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the excellent Budget—[Interruption.]—on the excellent and generous provision that he made for capital disregards for a wide range of income benefits, and on a very good savers' Budget.

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

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

Would my right hon. Friend like to contrast last Tuesday's Budget with certain previous Budgets? Does she recollect that before certain previous Budgets people used to queue to stock up in case prices rose too much? Does she also recollect that in some of those Budgets certain savings were taxed at a rate of 98 per cent., which led the New Statesman to assert that the Labour Government were driving the country from affluence into bankruptcy? Does the Prime Minister agree that whatever economic problems we have now are as nothing compared with those bequeathed by the last Labour Government?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the vigorous way in which he put his question. It is strange to see the Opposition supporting a savers' Budget when their whole policy was to put a savings tax on investment income. It was this Government who took it off.

In view of this afternoon's humiliating turnaround in which Scotland was again treated as an afterthought, does the Prime Minister realise what a shambles her Government have descended to? She tells us that her Government is about leadership, but are there not now more Cabinet Ministers travelling behind the elephant clearing up the mess than in front telling it where to go?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could do better than that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that from 1 April this year the capital disregard for four income support benefits is to be put up to as high as £16,000. I am surprised that the Liberal-whatever-it's-called party is not grateful for that. The Government whom it supported in office could never have done such a generous thing—their disregards would have been much lower. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the disregards at that time were about £2,000.

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

I refer the hon. Lady—[Interruption]—my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.[Interruption.]

Order.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the deep, wounding insult to the people of the north-west made by the shadow sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), in undermining Manchester's bid for the Olympic games. Will she reaffirm that it is the intention of the Government to support Manchester's bid and to do all that they possibly can to ensure that the games come to Manchester?

Yes, we wholeheartedly support Manchester's bid for the 1996 Olympics. The city has put together an excellent brochure which shows how well Lancashire and the north-west have done under a Tory Government, and how they have been able to put up such a good bid. I hope that Manchester will be successful.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take points of order after business questions.