As the remaining 11 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the Broadcasting Bill.

The Broadcasting Bill made good progress in Committee, and returns to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages very soon.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the way in which he handled this detailed and comprehensive Bill, and in particular on the way in which he responded to the many representations made about it. Can he respond to some further representations that have been made about clause 84(2), which lays down general provisions about licensed services?

If my hon. Friend is anxious about the editorialising provisions as they affect religious broadcasting, I can say that we are giving further consideration to where to draw the important line—I know that the House will agree that that line has to be drawn—between legitimate religious expression and offering religious bodies the opportunity to expand religious broadcasting, as other groups will be able to expand other forms of broadcasting in the much wider broadcasting choice that will be available, and opening the door to the American or cult broadcasters who would do the public a disservice. I am aware of the worry that the editorialising provisions might, for instance, prevent a local church that had a community radio station from broadcasting its own religious services. I hope that the rules will not bite that deeply, but, because I am concerned about that, we shall consider whether there should be a new formulation. I hope to be able to take that a stage further on Report.

I welcome the improvements that the Minister has announced, and his further elaboration, but will he explain why Christian television stations should not be licensed when secular ones can be licensed and the same requirements could be stipulated for each?

I am happy to say that Christian television stations on cable or on the non-direct broadcasting by satellite services can be licensed. That is one of the changes that people will welcome. The hon. Gentleman asked why should not this be done without let or hindrance. The answer would be apparent if one turned on a television in the United States and saw Mr. Orel Roberts, Mr. Jimmy Swaggart and the rest of them. Opening the way to such people is no part of the propagation of decent Christian broadcasting.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on efforts made by motor manufacturers in the last year to improve the quality of car security.

Progress could certainly be faster. For example, it is very disappointing that the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, which has made an anti-car theft award to individual manufacturers, felt it necessary this year to withhold the award on the ground that no manufacturer had made great progress in improving car security.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents will be disappointed with the attitude of the motor industry towards motor car security. He will also be aware that the bulk of crime in London these days is stealing from or of motor cars and that a great deal of it could be halted if motor cars were made more secure. Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the motor industry the vital and urgent importance of improving the security of new motor cars and devising ways of improving the security of existing motor cars?

My hon. Friend is right. Thefts from motor cars represent about 26 per cent. of the annual crime figures. Most of the increase in crime in the 1980s—I choose my words carefully—has been due to an increase in car-related crime. I think that that is accurately describable as the British disease. Car manufacturers could and should do more to help, as, perhaps, should the insurance industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that only one model of motor car in the United Kingdom is manufactured with a foolproof and tamper-proof milometer? Is not it high time that motor manufacturers were encouraged to have tamper-proof odometers in all vehicles so that those who enter the second-hand car market can at least be offered some protection?

I was not aware of the issue which my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House. It is a good idea that tamper-proof odometers should be available. It is a curious reflection that while motor cars in the United Kingdom have the same equipment fitted to them as do motor cars in West Germany, for example, our rate of car-related crime is much higher than that in West Germany. Fitting equipment is one thing; using the equipment properly is another. We are open to all suggestions. The Home Office will draw up a register of cars and rank them in terms of vulnerability to theft and break-in. I shall publish the information.

Who would buy a second-hand car from this Government?

I once bought a very good second-hand car from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I had it for three or four years, and it gave me great service.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the real increase in a police constable's pay over the last 10 years.

Since the Government came to office, the pay of police constables has increased by just over 41 per cent. in real terms.

Does police remuneration under the Edmund-Davies formula include the rent allowance as an integral part, as a number of my police officer constituents, who have corresponded with me, seem to believe? What has been the increase in rent allowance for the 29 forces whose force maxima were last reviewed in 1988?

As my memory serves me, Lord Edmund-Davies did not make any recommendation on rent allowance. He said that he regarded it as reimbursement, not pay. I can answer precisely the second part of my hon. Friend's question. The change for those who last had an increase in rent allowance in 1988 and, therefore, did not have one last year, will be about 16 per cent. There is a small margin either way because some police forces had the uprating a few months earlier or later than others.

If the Minister were giving evidence in a court of law, would not he be guilty of withholding relevant information? In telling us of an increase in police pay, he failed conspicuously to mention the reduction in police pay that has been effected through the imposition of the poll tax in place of the previous rating system. Is not it hypocritical to prosecute when there has been something akin to the three-card trick, with the Government giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other?

No. I gave accurate and clear statistics on police pay. Under the arrangements that we have made for the community charge, which every adult should pay, the police, who are extremely well paid, come into the same category as the rest of the community, and quite rightly so.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have done extremely well by the police, but that there have been some difficulties about the rent allowance? Will he ask the chief constables in the forces concerned to report back to him on whether the rent allowance difficulties will lead to recruitment difficulties in the future?

The fact that police pay has risen so generously as I have said will ensure that we do not have recruitment difficulties, but we discuss such matters constantly with chief officers. My hon. Friend referred to the "problem" of rent allowances. Let me give one figure which will help to put that problem into perspective. We have spent 59 per cent. more on total police expenditure, including pay and equipment, since we took office, but rent allowances have risen by 124 per cent., showing that they have got quite out of line with what the rest of the community has to pay for housing and with police pay.

Why did the Home Secretary veto the agreement on pay and allowances which was decided by arbitration three months ago? Will he concede that, because of the conjunction of the poll tax and the holding down of rent allowances, many thousands of police officers will be worse off next year than they otherwise would have been? What will that do for police morale? Does the Minister share my opinion that the Home Secretary should have answered this question on the crucial matter of police pay?

The police are much fairer and more sensible than the right hon. Gentleman gives them credit for. The fact that their pay has moved in the way that it has shows how well they have been looked after. As Edmund-Davies said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a final duty to make a decision and he must make it on the wider basis of the totality of spending and in comparison with the rest of the community. In addition, he has a duty to report to the House, which he will do when the measures come before the House in due time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

On Friday 27 April the total prison population in England and Wales was 45,948. That is 3,513 fewer than that on 28 April 1989, when the population stood at 49,461.

I welcome the decline in the prison population in recent months, but does my right hon. and learned Friend expect it to continue to fall in future, and is he taking steps to try wherever possible to keep people out of prison?

The central theme of the White Paper is that we should ensure that we do not send to prison unnecessarily those guilty of less serious crimes, but at the same time provide adequate powers of punishment so that the courts can give serious and severe sentences to those guilty of violent crime. In publishing the White Paper we were not embarking on a new course; we were building on the success of proposals introduced by the Government during the, past eight years. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that part of the fall in the prison population during the past 12 months has been due to the fact that many fewer young offenders have been sent to prison. That is an encouraging trend which I hope will develop as a result of the White Paper.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the present prison overcrowding, and regimes that provide prisoners with no useful occupation, are more conducive to recidivism than to reform? Does he agree, given the natural distress of those involved in the Strangeways disturbance, which has led to cries for industrial action of a kind that seems most unwelcome, that the time has come seriously to examine with prison officers the inadequacies of the existing regimes?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to bend our efforts towards the improvement of prison regimes. One sad consequence of the recent outbreaks of rioting is that the damage done to cells is a real setback to our plans. One need only read the report of the chief inspector of prisons on the improvements made at Strangeways during the 12 months before the riot to recognise that a great tribute should be paid to him for making such great improvements. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to continue to tackle, the issues, but we are confronted with major problems now because of the loss of accommodation resulting from the riots.

My right hon. and learned Friend will welcome the dramatic and increasing reduction in the prison population. I know that he is equally concerned about the conditions for people who must be sent to prison or placed on remand. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that some members of the Home Affairs Select Committee visited Strangeways on Monday. Is he aware of the very high regard that the staff have for the governor of that institution? Is he aware also of the high morale that prevails, and of the great courage that they have displayed over the past 25 days? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what Manchester and its staff need most of all is the remand prison brought back into use as soon as possible?

I am glad to be able to tell the House that during the past 12 months there has been a considerable fall in the remand population. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue to address that matter. I am grateful for his remarks about the governor of Strangeways and all the prison officers working there. I certainly pay tribute to them. An assessment of the structural damage to the wings at Manchester is being made. When it is completed, we shall review the various options for the prison's future. Obviously I can see the attractions, and the importance to the staff, of bringing at least part of the prison back into use as soon as possible.

Notwithstanding the figures that the Home Secretary has just given the House, does not he accept that the Government's prison reform policy has moved at the speed of a tortoise? We are in 1990, yet too many prisoners are still locked up in cells for more than 20 hours a day in appalling conditions, and have inadequate opportunities for education and exercise. Has not the Government's continuing indifference and complacency over the past decade contributed to the kind of situation that arose at Strangeways?

That is an extraordinary comment. As the Labour party is so coy these days about revealing its policies and how much they will cost, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back next time and tell the House how much an incoming Labour Government would spend on a new prison building programme. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we introduced the first substantial prison building programme this century. It involves constructing no fewer than 28 prisons, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that eight of them have already been completed. For a member of a party that did precisely nothing about prisons when it was in office, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are sheer cheek.

As my right hon. and learned Friend reflects on the unfortunate events at Strangeways, perhaps he will recall the famous remark made by Lloyd George to Churchill in the Norway debate of 1940, that Churchill should not turn himself into an air raid shelter to protect those who were really responsible. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while we on the Conservative Benches know that he will take responsibility for his Department like the honourable man that he is, we believe that he should not protect people who have given bad advice or who have not fully passed on information?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I have already made the position perfectly clear. I have no intention whatever of placing the blame on officials. I can only tell the House the truth, which is that there is a chain of command. The deputy director-general reported to me about these matters and I did not veto any proposals that he or the governor put to me.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of police time is spent in community policing.

It is not feasible to quantify the specific percentage of time spent on community policing as it is integral to almost all aspects of police activity. It is a primary responsibility of every police officer to serve his or her local community efficiently and effectively, and with its consent and support. The deployment of officers at force level to fulfil this duty is a matter for the individual chief officer concerned.

I hope that the Minister accepts that getting bobbies on the beat in our towns and villages is the best method of crime prevention and detection, and that that should be a priority. May I draw attention to Devon and Cornwall constabulary? On average, a constable serves 407 people in his or her area, but in our area an officer serves 523 people. That makes community policing in the far-flung towns and villages of our community difficult. Will the Minister press urgently for a substantial improvement in the ratio?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend takes the advice of Her Majesty's inspector of police on these matters. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been delighted at the announcement of 17 more police officer posts in the police force in his area this year, and we shall consider the recommendations that are made next year. I must take issue with him on one point. Policemen on the beat are not the only or necessarily the major part of community policing, which includes neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels, work in schools, work with young people and consultative groups. A range of activities is part of good community policing, not just the one element that the hon. Gentleman mentions, although it is an important one.

Although I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the growth in community policing, does he agree that a feature of it that deserves greater examination is the fact that the attention paid to it by different forces throughout the country tends to vary? Does he agree that advice from his Department to chief constables, emphasising the importance of community policing, may ensure that, throughout Britain, the same high priority is attached to this vital area of police work?

We place great importance on the matter and talk to chief officers about it. My hon. Friend is right that there are different practices in different forces and that community policing is understood in a variety of ways. That is why we have Dr. Trevor Bennett conducting research systematically with each force to see what each force regards as community policing policy. In that way we hope not only to have a common understanding of what is meant by it, but to pick out best practice to recommend to forces throughout the country

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the special branch document ref. No. 10368/74; and what action he has taken.

As I said on 30 March in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), a copy of this document was passed to me by the West Midlands police on 23 January 1990. I examined the document carefully and concluded that it did not constitute new evidence which might cast doubt on the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six.

As the document is a special branch record of the confession of a confirmed member of the IRA, who was then convicted for his crimes, is not the Home Secretary disturbed that on page 3 the individual names a member of the IRA, Mr. Michael Hayes, whom he met in December 1974 and who told him that he had planted one of the two Birmingham pub bombs? As the confession has been in the hands of the police and of special branch for over a decade, how can it be that it did not lead to doubts in the Home Secretary's mind and to a full investigation? Surely this calls into doubt the soundness of the conviction. Surely now is the time for a full public inquiry.

One thing the police report certainly was not was a confession—it was a report on information provided by a person arrested for terrorist offences in the 1970s. The Home Office made inquiries about the document after a Granada television programme last November which referred to its existence, but the hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. The men referred to in the document had been included in the original police investigation, but not sufficient evidence was found against them. Therefore the production of the document by Granada was a non-event and I was able to recognise it as such.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask special branch to investigate why it is that if those men are wrongly convicted they always face the wall whenever they appear in front of a prison governor because they claim that they are political prisoners and not prisoners of British justice?

I do not think that I am capable of commenting on that. I have made my position absolutely clear: if material is put before me which it is suggested is new evidence that may cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, I am prepared to look at those matters. Here is a clear case where a great deal of fuss has been made about a document which includes the names of certain people who it is quite clear were investigated by the police way back in 1974, before the trial, when no sufficient evidence was found against them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how much money was invested in purchasing new technology for crime management and crime pattern analysis by each police force in Wales during 1989–90.

The purchase of computers and other equipment is a matter for chief constables and their police authorities. I understand, however, that in 1989–90 the police forces in Wales spent the following amounts on new technology for crime management and crime pattern analysis: Dyfed Powys £7,500, Gwent £3,500 and South Wales £89,500.

The Minister will recall that in an earlier reply his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he heeded the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors. Is he aware of the recent HMI report into the South Wales police which said that their lack of computers was hampering their effectiveness in detecting crime. The report states:

"Crime management and crime pattern analysis——"

Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase, not quote.

Is the Minister aware that that report makes it clear that because chief officers of police have to consult files manually they are hampered in trying to detect crime? Will he make it clear to South Wales police that further funding will be made available so that they can overcome that problem?

Yes, I am well aware of the HMI report and that senior officers in the forces concerned share its views on the necessity of improving the situation. Plans to do so must lie with the police authorities, and this year they are intending to spend a further £2 million on equipment. I hope that a great deal of that money will go on upgrading their computer systems. Of the amount that they intend to spend, one third will come from central Government grant.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on a report published today, which shows that one in five of the public in south Wales is not satisfied with the work of the police? Those people gave two reasons for their dissatisfaction—first, that the police are too busy to do their job properly and, secondly, that there are not enough police on the streets. If that police force does not receive money for its computer equipment it will be unable to do its job properly.

From the figures that the hon. Gentleman cites, it is clear that 80 per cent. of people in the area are satisfied with the police. In answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), I said that a particular shortcoming in computer technology had been identified and knowledge of it shared with the chief officers. A substantial sum of money is available among the police forces in Wales to spend on equipment and no doubt they will spend it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increases in sentences for serious and violent crimes there have been since 1984.

Between 1984 and 1988, average sentence lengths increased by 33 per cent. for violence against the person, 47 per cent. for sexual offences and 28 per cent. for robbery.

I welcome those considerable increases in sentences for violent criminals and I particularly welcome the fact that in the context of attempting to reduce the prison population, we are not weakening our efforts to deal with violent criminals. May we be assured that sentences will continue to increase in length, not only as a deterrent but to protect our constituents from violent and evil men?

I welcome my hon. Friend's concern for public protection and for women's safety in this country. It is our intention that the courts shall have lengthy sentences available to them to deal with violent and sexual offenders, and it is quite right that that should be the case.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it has been made more possible, from a practical point of view, to increase sentences for violent and serious crime and to reduce the prison population because the judiciary has made space in our prisons by reducing the number of prisoners on remand, by keeping the number of fine defaulters down to well below 1 per cent. and by taking advantage of community service orders and the other alternatives to imprisonment that the Government have made prodigious efforts to increase?

I note what my hon. and learned Friend says about the judiciary and I accept that he is entirely accurate to say that there has been a considerable recognition by all concerned, including the Labour party, that many non-violent and non-serious offenders can be punished adequately in the community, thereby helping the community and paying back for some of the wrong that they have done.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that judges are to some extent inhibited from passing the right sentences by the antique and arcane calendar of offences, many of which have not been changed since 1860 or 1861? Will the Government introduce a whole new range of offences to deal with homicide and violence which would enable judges to exercise their discretion more fully and properly?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, being a recorder as well as a Member of Parliament, that there has been a considerable amount of criminal law reform in the 1980s. However, I believe that what he says is well worth considering in the 1990s.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special units have been established within the Metropolitan police area dealing with cases of domestic violence.

There are currently 35 such units. A year ago there were 12. The first ever was set up in 1987 and I am told that the commissioner plans more.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that special police units to deal with domestic violence are performing an extremely valuable role, not only in protecting battered women but in nipping violence in the bud and thus keeping together families which might otherwise fall apart? Does he agree that that initiative is pursuing the valuable twin aims of preserving the family and preserving law and order?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that more women are coming forward to report cases of domestic violence shows the confidence of victims in the way in which the police handle such cases, and we should pay tribute to the police for that. My hon. Friend is also right to say that early intervention by the police can stop small domestic violence incidents escalating into more serious cases of violence and can thus keep families together, which is what we all want to see. That is why in the next couple of months I shall be issuing a circular to the police encouraging them to set up more domestic violence units and to keep at-risk registers.

Is the Minister satisfied with the number of units that have been established? Does he concede that this important issue needs to be dealt with rapidly by the police, with an increase in the number of officers trained to deal with victims of domestic violence? Does he agree that women who are victims of such violence must be confident that their case will be recorded as one of domestic violence and not just put down as a neighbourhood dispute, as so often happens in the police recording procedures?

I hope that it will not alarm the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with him. It is important that every crime is reported to the police and recorded. The fact that the commissioner has introduced such an increase in the number of domestic violence units in the Metropolitan area is welcome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will visit those in his district to see the excellent work done in them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward his proposals giving courts stronger power to hold parents liable for the criminal activities of young offenders.

We shall bring forward legislation to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", including those on parental responsibility, at the first suitable opportunity.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one third of all crime is perpetrated by the under-17s and that some parents do not seem to know where their children are either by day or at night? Could the regulations therefore be introduced at the earliest possible date, bearing in mind the experience in the United States of America where similar regulations have caused parents to consider their children's actions more carefully?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that. It should be possible—I believe that it is—to bring home to parents their responsibility when a child goes wrong, without making the parents guilty of a criminal offence. We can do that by strengthening the powers to require parents to pay the fines imposed on their children, allowing magistrates to assess the fines according the parents' means as well as the child's means, requiring a parent to attend court when a child is brought to court and binding parents over to exercise proper control over their children. I should have thought that all right-minded people would understand the common sense of those proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on concessionary licences for retirement pensioners.

Under the 1988 regulations, the concessionary television licence is available to retirement pensioners and disabled people who live in registered residential or nursing homes or in equivalent sheltered accommodation provided by a local authority or a housing association. Some 875,000 people currently benefit from the concession. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no plans to make any further changes to the scheme.

Does the Minister realise that the 44,000 pensioners who live in the city of Leicester and millions of others throughout the country, have had to suffer a dramatic decline in their living standards because of the Government's policies in the past 10 years? Does he accept that millions of them simply cannot afford to pay the cost of a television licence as well as all the other charges that they have to pay, including the poll tax? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench next to him, to see whether resources can be made available to implement a scheme for all pensioners? The Opposition believe that British pensioners have made a valuable contribution to society and deserve special treatment.

The only problem with what the hon. Gentleman has said is that most of it is inaccurate. It is not true that pensioners' living standards have been falling in recent years—in fact, they have been growing. It is not true that every pensioner is in need. We know that many pensioners are well off—better off than those who would have to pay an extra amount in television licence fee if all pensioners were to receive the concession. The cost of the concession to other licence payers would be sufficient to take the television licence fee to more than £100. Despite the occasional weasel protestation from the Opposition Front Bench, they have never committed themselves to make that change, although I hope that one of them may stand up and clarify the point later.

Will the Minister look into what I think may be an anomaly in the regulations, whereby even if all the residents of a retirement home are of pensionable age they are not allowed the concessionary television licence if the articles of the home permit persons to be admitted to the home from age 55 even if none under retirement age are actually present?

I think that everyone who has had to deal with this scheme has a passing regret that the scheme was ever devised, because it is of its very nature that lines must be drawn, thus creating anomalies and there are always some people just the other side of the line. We tried to tidy up the arrangements in 1988, but any tidying up still leaves hard cases. I regret what my hon. Friend has said and if that is the case I shall look at it, but it is of the nature of a scheme which was no doubt invented in a hurry and has caused a lot of trouble in the past 20 or 30 years.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the voters of Hammersmith and Fulham are very grateful to the Government for having cut their community charge by £99? Does she also know that my constituents are outraged that the Labour-controlled council is spending community charge payers' money taking the Government to court to try to put the charge back up again? Will she join me in assuring the voters of Hammersmith and Fulham that if they vote for a Conservative-controlled council today the capping will stay and every community charge payer will be £99 better off tomorrow?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hammersmith and Fulham has for years been a very high-spending council. In 1987–88 it put the rates up by 127 per cent., and it has increased its budget significantly in recent years, so that this year it has set a charge of £424. The council has been capped because its budget was excessive—nearly £300 per adult over the standard spending assessment. The proposed cap gives a £99 reduction in the charge and, as my hon. Friend says, the voters have every cause to be grateful to the Conservative Government. Labour-controlled councils cost you more and Conservative-controlled councils cost you less—and give a better service.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding Members on the Conservative Benches that they are still in Parliament.

Where are the Opposition?

Order. Such interruptions take up a lot of time.

Several of my hon. Friends are out ensuring even bigger gains for the Labour party in today's elections.

If that is so, the enemy is not the community charge but high-spending Labour-controlled councils.

By now the Prime Minister knows very well that that is absolutely not true. Why does she not heed the words of her fellow Conservatives in places like Redbridge, where the large Conservative majority on the council passed a resolution calling upon the Government

"to desist from misleading the public and to accept its own overriding share of responsibility for the level of community charge"?

Because it is local councils which set the community charge—I trust that the right hon. Gentleman does not argue with that—and, as he knows, the top 50 overspenders are all Labour-controlled councils. [Interruption.] The top 50 overspenders are Labour-controlled or councils with no overall control. The difference is well exemplified by my authority which, after safety net, has a community charge of £268 but which is top in the education stakes. The Labour-controlled authority where the right hon. Gentleman lives has a community charge after the safety net of £408 and is 74th in educational performance.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that councillors of all parties, including her own, deeply resent the way in which she is trying to blame them for that which is her fault? Why will she not stand up and accept her own guilt?

Labour councillors are expected to take responsibility for the community charges which they set. If they cannot take responsibility, they should not be there. The fact is that under Labour people pay more for poorer services and for spending on things that they do not want. Conservative-controlled councils cost less and provide a better service.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that every kind of diplomatic pressure is being brought to bear to secure the release of the hostages in the middle east? Does she agree that it would be wholly wrong to enter into direct negotiations with terrorists or those who are their sponsors?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously we very much want to get our hostages out and every day we are trying to do something to that end. May I point out that our embassy staff have remained in Beirut throughout a very dangerous and difficult period? One of their main purposes in being there is to try to find out any information that they can about any hostages.

This is a statement. It is an abuse.

Order. It is a matter which is of grave concern to the whole House.

It is wrong to make deals with those who take hostages. We shall not do that, and nor does the United States. The Archbishop of Canterbury has this morning reaffirmed his view that the Government's policy is sound and that one should never reward hostage-taking because to do so would encourage more of it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister comment on the collusion which has been exposed today between the Tory-appointed chairman of Lothian health board and the Scottish health Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), for the purpose of suppressing until after today—and I quote:

"to avoid political embarrassment to the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party"

I know of no such collusion whatsoever. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has done wonders for the Health Service in Scotland. There are more hospitals, more nurses, more doctors who are better paid and more patients being treated than ever before. It would be kind if people could pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary who has had a good deal to do with that.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend, following her statement last Tuesday, give greater reassurance to the House that the Government will introduce positive and persuasive ideas for co-operative evolution in the European Community? Will she apply her undoubted leadership qualities to breed cohesion among Community leaders to ensure that the Community develops in a way that benefits everyone in Europe?

Yes. In the next few weeks we shall present ideas to make the institutions of the Community work better, on the basis of sovereign states working through national Parliaments and through the Council of Ministers in the Community in a way that benefits everyone. We shall also be introducing some different ideas for economic and monetary union—bearing in mind the approach of the House, which is not to move in anything like the Delors direction, as that would rob us of our powers. We think that our ideas would go further to ensure the co-operation of the Community states to benefit everyone.

Has the Prime Minister read the reports in today's newspapers about the Dudley man who was sent a bill for £1·91 poll tax for the last two days of his wife's life? Does she not see that that adds shame to the verdict of inefficiency and injustice that is being passed on the poll tax at the ballot box today? How powerful must the vote of protest against the poll tax be before the right hon. Lady will listen?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to that action by Dudley Labour council, which was not under an obligation to collect that sum from the deceased person's estate. [Interruption.] The relevant regulations provide only that sums owing may be recovered in the administration of the person's estate and from his executor or administrator. The Department of the Environment has been advising authorities that if a person dies shortly after 1 April they should consider writing off any outstanding amount. Furthermore, there is no doubt that in this case the cost of billing Mrs. Wood's estate exceeded the amount of the charge.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she has any information about local authorities which provide good services at reasonable cost, as opposed to those which provide poor services at extortionate cost?

I gladly comply. My hon. Friend will know the answer. It is Conservative councils which give good value for money, cost less and give excellent services. It is Labour councils which cost people more, offer poorer services and often spend money on things that people do not want. The object lesson is clear—elect Conservative councils.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister sack the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—because he instructed Lothian health board to withhold its programme of hospital closures until after today's regional elections? Does she agree that that is typical of the hon. Member for Stirling and that the Scottish people have had enough of him because of his sustained attacks on their welfare?

No, I will pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Health Service in Scotland for the excellent way in which the service is run, to the great benefit of most of the people in Scotland—who, I am sure, are much more satisfied with it than the hon. Gentleman is. I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me a question about the community charge, possibly because the level of community charge set by Lothian is the highest of any authority in Scotland.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

I will take it in a minute.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is the point of order?

Should not the same strictures apply to the Prime Minister as apply to other Members of the House when they deal with matters not contained in the question?

I cannot be held responsible for what is said in answer to questions.

There is probably no one in the House who cares more than my right hon. Friend about the plight of the hostages in the middle east, but in the light of her earlier answer will she reaffirm that the only result of giving in to terrorists is, in the long run, the taking of more hostages, and that the only way forward must be through quiet diplomacy?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. If we ever give in to blackmail it results in the taking of more hostages, which is why neither we nor the Americans will make deals of that kind. We both try and will continue to try, through our contacts, through the protecting power, and through other contacts that we have, to do everything possible to bring about the release of the hostages, about whom we are very concerned. We note that America has done no deals—it is through quiet contacts that her hostages have been released.