asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of cervical cancer screening machines in each of the English and Welsh district health authorities.

Cervical cancer screening requires only the simplest of equipment, which is readily available in all district health authorities.

Despite that comment by the junior Minister, is it not the case that, in most authorities, there is not an adequate system of call and recall for cervical cancer screening? The reality is that only one authority in five in England and Wales has that service. Is it not time for the Minister, instead of giving glib answers, to reassure men and women throughout the country that she is prepared to invest in a real service and to make the money available for a call and recall scheme for all women at risk?

The call and recall system is not in itself a screening system, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises. I am also aware that in his own city, Leeds, progress is being made to introduce a full computerised call and recall system. The family practitioner committee is currently computerising its register as the first stage. Until then, a manual system is in operation for recall, which is achieving a commendable 80 per cent. response.

Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of when it may be possible to offer regular cancer cervical tests for all women who are calculated by the medical profession now to be at risk?

It is possible now to offer regular testing, and we recommend that women between 20 and 65 should come in and be tested on a regular basis. The dispute is not about the screening system that is available now. It is about the computerised call and recall systems, and we expect that all health authorities will meet their target of next spring.

Does the Minister realise that several hundred women in Liverpool have had to be recalled, either for hospital treatment or for further tests, because of errors in analysis? What assurances can she give women throughout the country that tests of this kind are accurate? Does she have faith in the present system, or does she believe that these errors can be eliminated in some way or other?

Yes. I, like many millions of women, have complete faith in the present system. The problems in Liverpool, as the hon. Lady knows, are the subject of an inquiry.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the substantial progress that the Government have made in this area, but may I draw her attention to the length of time it has taken, particularly in the county of Shropshire, for people who undergo the examination to get the results of the tests? I have a letter from a constituent in the Bayston Hill area of Shrewsbury who has been waiting since January, and we are now in the last day of June. That is quite long enough to wait.

It gives me no pleasure whatever to confirm that the waiting time in Shropshire is the worst in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will add these remarks to those made during last night's Adjournment debate in his further discussions with the local health authority.

Will the Minister tell us when the 56 health authorities that promised to bring in call and recall schemes by 30 March, but failed to do so, will do so?

The advice that we have received, which we have confirmed once again this week, is that all health authorities expect to have their computerised call and recall systems up and running by next spring. I reiterate that if the hon. Gentleman wants to assist women who might at some stage suffer from cervical cancer he should encourage those who have never been tested to come in for a test. They do not have to wait until they get a computerised piece of paper. The test is available now.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when free needles and syringes will be available to diabetics.

Re-usable syringes and needles are already available on prescription. As I announced on 14 May, disposable syringes and needles will be available on prescription from 1 September. Since diabetics who need insulin are exempt from all prescription charges, they will be free for adults as well as for children.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making available the resources to bring about an improvement which will be of considerable benefit to many diabetics. Is he satisfied that by September sufficient supplies of the disposable equivalent will be available and that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the safe disposal of used needles?

Yes. It is because I wished to be sure on those two points that the system is being introduced a little later than I had originally hoped, but we have made arrangements which I am confident will be satisfactory.

Doubtless the Minister is aware that many thousands of carers now have to pay for syringes for those loved ones for whom they care. The carers tend to be poor women who cannot afford to pay. Was it not a mean act by the Government to announce at one and the same time the increase in prescription charges and the availability, albeit later, of free syringes? Was not the availability of the free syringes put in as a sweetener, as it were, to disguise the increase in prescription charges?

I am a bit puzzled by what the hon. Lady says. Syringes and needles are already free on prescription, but they are re-usable syringes and needles. We are substituting free provision of the more convenient and comfortable disposable syringes and needles. The hon. Lady's approach is typical of the mean-minded, nitpicking that we have heard from the Opposition recently.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value in real terms of the basic retirement pension to (a) a single person and (b) a married couple, as a proportion of average earnings, compared with their value after the November 1977 upratings.

The basic retirement pension was 33·8 per cent. of average net male manual earnings in November 1977 and 29·8 per cent. on estimated April 1987 figures. The corresponding figures for a married couple were 50·8 and 45·3 per cent., respectively.

Is it not disgraceful that, at a time when, for instance, managing directors throughout the country are increasing their own salaries at a colossal and almost unprecedented rate and are telling people who want a slight increase not to be greedy, pensioners should be hard put to it to pay standing charges and television licences? Surely the so-called boom that is going on should not allow that to happen. Was not the last increase of 40p a direct, pitiful insult to the pensioners, and is it not time that the Government did something for them?

If we are talking about pitiful points, the hon. Gentleman secures first prize. What the Government have done since they were elected is to see that the total income of pensioners as a whole—and that is what matters—has risen twice as fast as the income of the population as a whole. We have given pensioners a share in Britain's rising living standards.

Will my hon. Friend concede that we want no lectures from the Labour party on caring for pensioners? Was it not the Tories who first introduced pensions for the over-80s and who twice restored the Christmas bonus that was snatched away by the Labour Government?

Although I am very tolerant, accepting lectures from those who behaved in the way described by my hon. Friend, those who pledged themselves to link pensions to earnings and then failed to fulfil their promises in government, is a bit thick.

Will the Minister concede that one of the biggest losses to pensioners during the period of this Government has, of course, been the conscious break with uprating in relation to earnings and that that has led to a severe loss of pensioners' puchasing power? Will he at least look at the principle of entering into discussions with the major utilities with a view to trying to abolish standing charges for pensioners?

With regard to those utilities, gas and electricity prices have fallen in real terms over the period of this Government. That fall and the general fall in inflation have helped pensioners. A mistake that is often made in these matters is to refer simply to the basic pension rather than to the total income of pensioners as a whole. Our plans and aims for the future mean that we will widen choice and improve opportunities so that people may receive extra help beyond the basic pension.

I recognise that the Government have done a great job for pensioners, but does my hon. Friend none the less agree that while he was out on the election trail most hon. Members on both sides of the House must have been struck by and concerned about the level and quality of life of people living on nothing but the state pension? When he considers the uprating of pensions, will he see whether the Government can do something for people with no income other than the one pension? Those people cannot maintain dignity of life simply on the current level of pension.

The vast majority of people who receive the basic pension would also be entitled to supplementary benefit and full housing cost benefit. They would also receive help with heating additions, insulation grants and a passport to a free Health Service. It is the duty of all hon. Members to encourage those people receiving the basic pension to ensure that they receive all the benefits to which they are entitled.

I welcome the Minister to this particular bed of nails. I sympathise with him, because he obviously has not been with the Department long enough to know just how dubious are some of the facts that he has been fed. The total income of pensioners has risen only as a reflection of the scheme introduced by the previous Labour Government, which the present Government have just emasculated. The figures that the Minister has given show that under this Government the standard of living of a pensioner couple has fallen by 5 per cent., and that rather more reflects reality. How many pensioners do the Government predict will he on income support by the end of the century?

This will depend on the levels of income support and how they move. Incidentally, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous welcome. I note that she is fresh from the hustings. I regard this, not as a bed of nails, but as an opportunity to ensure that the vast sums of money that the Government spend and are continuing to spend on social security are targeted increasingly on those most in need.

Does my hon. Friend recall that at the hustings the majority of pensioners rejected Labour's fake fiver? Does he accept that pensioners understand better than any other group in society the hyper-inflation that would follow from any kind of proposed linkage?

The electorate saw through the blank cheque offered by Labour Members, not least noting the divisions between the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what extra resources his Department is making available to local authorities to deal with the problems of child abuse.

The1987–88 provision for personal social services was a 12·8 per cent. increase on 1986–87, representing a significant increase in real terms. This included additional provision for children's services and for training. Central funds have also been made available for a number of specific projects to improve the training of social workers and others who may be concerned with child abuse.

While in no way wishing to comment on any of the matters that were raised yesterday in a very heated atmosphere, may I point out to the Minister that physical or sexual abuse of children, which is now reported in far greater numbers, is about the biggest theft of childhood that any child can experience and that local authorities, despite what the Minister has said, are hard pushed to meet the demands on them for training in detection and how to deal with children who have been damaged'? Is he aware that we further betray those children if, having encouraged people to come forward and give evidence about these matters, we fail to meet the needs of the children?

I would not entirely agree with the implication of the hon. Lady's remarks. I agree that the problem is not only one of resources, but of skills and expertise, and that is precisely why we have been putting so much additional effort—including, for example, cooperation with Great Ormond street, the National Children's Bureau and the National Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children—into improving training in those areas. That is important.

Quite apart from resources, does the Minister not feel that when doctors, social workers, magistrates and local authorities appear to be approaching this extremely important matter in divergent ways it is urgent for the Secretary of State, together, perhaps, with the Home Secretary, to call together representatives of all the strands of care in this vital area of activity to see whether a more cohesive approach can be created, including updated legislation if that proves necessary?

If I agreed entirely with my hon. Friend my answer would he yes, but the arrangements for proper inter-agency co-operation are working well in most parts of the country. It is clear that in at least one part of the country they do not appear to be working well, and our problem is to make sure that they work well everywhere.

Will the Minister condemn the outrageous statement made in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) when he equated the Cleveland social services with the SS?

My hon. Friend referred to a particular case which he said had been brought to his attention and on which I am not in a position to comment—[Interruption.] I am not prepared to comment on the hon. Lady's question this afternoon any more than I was prepared to comment on my hon. Friend's question yesterday afternoon.

Are not such cases always extremely difficul to assess, and does not intervention and help require great skill? Does my hon. Friend agree that social workers require proper training and co-ordination and that procedures between agencies must be properly implemented? Can my hon. Friend offer any encouragement that we shall update the law on child care, making more explicit the rights and responsibilities of local authorities and parents?

My hon. Friend will know that we have published proposals in those respects and that within the next few months we are hoping to put out in a final form the draft guidance that we have had out for some time to make quite sure that inter-agency co-operation, which we all agree is needed, takes place effectively throughout the country.

Does the Minister accept that often the increase in cases of child abuse occurs most when families are under pressure in areas of deprivation; that, as the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, some places need an increase in resources; that others, particularly the inner cities, need better co-ordination between the health and social services; and that in all regions the Minister should take a lead in implementing a system of second checks so that the rights of all can be protected at the first stage, because after that it can never be done adequately and suspicion will never be got rid of?

The hon. Gentleman will have noted what was said yesterday by the Northern regional health authority in setting up a pilot scheme. We shall obviously want to look at and learn from the experience of that scheme.

Will the Minister accept from one who has just left the administration of social work training that those directly involved accept that there is a desperate need for additional resourcing in that vital area? All members of the social work profession accept that professionally trained social workers are the best way to avoid problems in society. Therefore, will he give an early indication of when we can expect a statement on the diploma of qualification in social work, to enable schemes on the certificate in social service and the certificate of qualification in social work to progress in preparation for 1991?

With her expertise, the hon. Lady will know that I had discussions with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work a few months ago. It is doing some more work on its proposals in order to refine them, and we shall look at those carefully when we have them later in the year.

Does my hon. Friend recall the case of Maria Caldwell, who was brutally killed by her stepfather in my constituency? Surely he will remember that, as a result, a new Act came on to the statute book which altered the balance of the rights between parents and children. In view of the tragic situation that has now arisen in Cleveland, and the new figures produced by the NSPCC, will he ensure that any future legislation continues to keep that balance right, that we do not overreact, and always remember that children's rights must come first?

Having held these responsibilities at an earlier stage, and in a different capacity as well, I am very conscious of the fact that the most difficult single problem is getting that balance right. Indeed, that has been illustrated within the past few weeks—by the Kimberley Carlisle case not long ago, on which we shall soon receive a report, and by what is now alleged to have happened in Cleveland. It is an acutely difficult problem, and I am very conscious of it.

Given that most perpetrators of this kind of abuse are men and that the overwhelming majority of victims are young girls, should not the Government, among other things, encourage the recruitment of many more women doctors into the ranks of police surgeons? Police surgeons have an important role to play, and they, too, must be given the right kind of training.

I believe I am right in saying that the number of women doctors generally is increasing. I look to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to confirm that. However, I shall certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Does the Minister accept that, while women doctors may be becoming more numerous, women police surgeons are not? Even in the House today there is a tendency, which is reflected nationally, for people to bury their heads in the sand and miss the tragedy that is taking place in the nation. More resources are needed to deal with it. Can a social worker do a case conference, enter into multi-disciplinary conferments, and at the same time be on his or her patch dealing with the problems? Does the Minister accept that more resources are needed? Can such resources also be made available to Northern Ireland, or will that have to go to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference?

I said in my reply to the original question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that there had been a substantial increase in the provision for social services for the current year and that that took account of children's services. Of course, we shall continue to take those matters into account, not least the recent experience, when considering allocations for future years.

Is the Minister aware that, in view of the stream of horrific child abuse cases in recent years and the current hysteria that does not make for good policy-making, it is a serious failure that the Government have still not formalised guidance for dealing with such cases? As Cleveland is now referring children at a rate more than 10 times greater than the national average, does that not suggest that there are enormous and unacceptable variations in the handling of problems and that there are no agreed medical rules for diagnosing child abuse? Will the Minister therefore convene a national panel of all the relevant professional interests to try to achieve a national consensus on the identification, handling and treatment of a very serious problem that has been underestimated for years?

We already have in hand arrangements to prepare practice guidance for social workers, for health visitors and, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggested it, for doctors. As I said yesterday on a different angle of the problem, I frankly think that it would be better for us to get on with that work than to convene a national conference along the lines that he suggests.

rose——

Order. The House will understand why I allowed a fairly long run on that question, but I feel that we must now move on rather more rapidly.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the national breast cancer screening programme.

The first nationwide breast cancer screening service in the world is to be established in this country within three years. Regional health authorities are making good progress in planning for their first centres, which will be set up by 31 March 1988. The remainder will follow within the next two years. The four training centres for staff involved in screening throughout the country have already been selected and are now being set up. They will be at Guildford, Nottingham, Manchester and Camberwell.

May I be the first on the Conservative Benches to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and express the hope that in future he will find it possible to spend more of the nation's resources more effectively on those most in need? May I also ask him to confirm to the House that the Government intend to implement in full the recommendations of the Forrest report?

Yes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made that absolutely clear on 25 February when he announced the publication of the Forrest report and the acceptance of its proposals and decisions. While thanking my hon. Friend for his remarks, may I also confirm that what all of us on both sides of the Chamber ought to be concerned about is the effective use of national resources for caring.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in taking on the full recommendations of the Forrest report the Government will make available all the necessary financial resources to achieve immediate implementation?

Comments on resources were made quite clear on 25 February : £6 million in the first year, £13 million in the second year and £22 million in the third year. That will allow, as was also made clear in the statement, not simply for screening but for assessment of the diagnoses and for treatment.

Is the Secretary of State really satisfied with a breast cancer screening system that will not screen any women under the age of 50 or over the age of 65?

I am satisfied that, unlike some Opposition Members, the Government took precisely the advice that was given in the Forrest report. When it was published in 1986 the Forrest report concluded that

the effectiveness of screening by mammography has not so far been demonstrated in women under 50 years of age. Out of some 15,000 deaths from breast cancer in the United Kingdom, over 13,000 are among women over 50.

Therefore, it is quite clear that the Government sought to implement precisely the Forrest recommendations. As for women under the age of 50, the Government have made it clear that research will continue to be pursued not only through Professor Vessey but through the Medical Research Council. As for women over the age of 65, they may avail themselves of the service, but it is not specifically geared to them in the first instance.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department last conducted a survey of the safety standards of National Health Service X-ray equipment.

The safety standards of National Health Service equipment are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and more recently by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. It is the health authorities and other National Health Service users of X-ray equipment who are individually responsible for ensuring that these regulations are observed, and it is the duty of the Health and Safety Executive, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to enforce compliance.

I thank the Minister for telling me what I already knew. I know where the responsibilities lie. Having avoided the question on the Order Paper, will the Minister tell me whether she is aware that medical opinion—and I guess that we must listen to medical opinion, even if there is conflict among it—says that 1,400 serious cancers per year are caused in the United Kingdom by the over-prescription of radiography and by the use of outdated and antiquated radiographic equipment? What does the Minister or her Department intend to do about that parlous state of affairs?

I am sure that there are many medical opinions that would challenge vigorously the extraordinary statement that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Radiotherapy is one of the most long-established and best treatments for cancer that we have. May I also remind him, in case he had not noticed, that we are in the middle of the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the National Health Service. As part of that programme, in the past five years more than 120 new X-ray rooms have been provided. More than 50 of them were provided last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to abolish the time limits on board and lodging payments to young people on supplementary benefit.

April 1989, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition greatly condemn these pernicous, punitive and unpopular board and lodging payments and the fact that young people will have to wait as long as 1989 for them to be abolished? Why cannot he for once act in a humanitarian way by announcing an immediate end to this lousy and rotten system that was introduced by the Government?

From April 1989 unemployed boarders will look to housing benefit to meet their housing costs. The reason for its postponement to April 1989 is precisely because the local authority associations wished it to be that date.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his elevation to the Front Bench. His appointment will give much pleasure to many of his colleagues. Does he accept that there are links between homelessness and joblessness, and that a consequence of the present system is that a considerable number of younger people are required to move every few weeks?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. The evidence from the surveys that we have conducted is not that young people are being forced to move from area to area. Many are remaining in the same area and claiming the benefit at the non-householder rate.

Is the Minister aware that during the summer months——

Look at the hon. Member's jacket.

Order.

Is the Minister aware——

Look at the jacket.

Order. It is often worn in tropical countries.

Speaking on behalf of those in the hills, is the Minister aware that during the summer months many young people, especially in London, face a particular danger in that their board and lodging accommodation is taken away from them to make way for tourists, who are prepared to pay more money for it, and that consequently those young people are thrown on to the streets? What action does the Minister intend to take to protect those young homeless people in the cities from the ravages of the tourist industry?

One of the reasons why we have imposed time limits is that we did not want to induce young people into this sort of accommodation. We believe that the levels that have been set for paying these boarding charges are appropriate to the areas in which those levels have been set.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that no changes to the current DHSS regulations will be made until the changes to the use classes order 1986 have been clarified, to ensure that no further seaside hotels are turned into DHSS hostels by "dole-on-sea" racketeers?

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are not going back to the bad old days. Under the new system boarders will no longer get special benefit rates over and above those that are paid to other claimants. They will have to meet the enhanced availability for work tests that are being introduced at present. Local authorities will have greater powers to refuse to meet unreasonable charges, rather than greater incentives to do so.

Does the Minister not realise that if people are staying in the same place it is probably because of the number of times on which the Government's regulations have been ruled to be illegal and, therefore, not operative? Does he not recognise that the exemption system is working very badly, that there is tremendous resentment among those who are forced to move round and that it is particularly stupid that by doing so they cannot even get on to a housing list? Will he reconsider the answer that he has given?

No. I am not aware of those problems. It appears to me that the system is working well. Twenty five per cent. of youngsters between 16 and 25 are exempt and there is the possibility of applying to the Secretary of State for further exemption. Some 280 cases for exemption have been considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects nurses to receive the pay increase which the Government awarded them in April.

All nurses should have received the new rates of pay in their June pay packets and arrears by the end of July. This means that under this Government the pay of nurses in the National Health Service has risen since 1979 in real terms by 30 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in inner London there are acute shortages of nurses in many departments in many hospitals? Can ways be explored to find the means not only of recruiting but of retaining those nurses in London hospitals?

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw our attention to the problems of London, which do affect the employment not only of nurses, but of many other employers in the capital city as well. There are clear problems in relation to accommodation, the environment in which the hospitals are situated, and transport. These are being looked at, because I recognise that there is a particular difficulty with regard to the recruitment and retention of nurses.

Why should a highly trained operating department assistant working in theatre earn less than a nurse? Is his or her contribution to the NHS any less, or the same?

If I were to start what I hope will be a lengthy career in this job by trying to decide on the relative differentials of those who are employed in the good, caring National Health Service I would be starting on the wrong track. The Government have sought to ensure that nurses and the Health Service as a whole have received real increases, which was their due, and I was delighted to be able to confirm that in the original answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in places outside London, such as Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency, there are peculiar difficulties in recruiting nurses due to the high cost of housing and the abundance of other jobs? Will he give careful consideration to the possibility of extending some sort of pay weighting to help offset this?

I do not want to go into the technical details to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but I am aware of the problems of Stoke Mandeville hospital. All of us are concerned to ensure that nurses, who serve us so well, are properly rewarded. We are aware of particular parts of the country where there are problems that are specifically related to accommodation. I will concern myself particularly with the point that my right hon. Friend has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in his review of benefit rates in the tax year 1987–88, he will take account of the increase in average earnings since 1979.

Several factors, including any increase in earnings, may be considered when benefits are uprated, but the statutory obligation is to take account of whether benefits have retained their value in relation to the general movement of prices. We have honoured that obligation.

Will the Minister acknowledge the fact that had average earnings been linked to pensions a single pensioner would be £7·40 a week better off and a married couple £11·20 a week better off than in 1979? Is it any wonder that pensioners feel abandoned and ignored by this Government? Does the Minister understand that if pensions rose, not only would that give greater dignity in retirement to pensioners, but it would have a good effect on the British economy and on employment, as the spending of pensioners tends to relate to British jobs and services?

Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He is concentrating entirely on basic pensions. The income of pensioners in this country has risen by no less than 18 per cent. in real terms since we took office. By pursuing a pensions policy for the future that is based on choice and flexibility we intend to ensure that pensioners share in the increased prosperity of the country.

Is the Minister aware that it is a shameful indictment of the Government's pensions policy that the single pension today in France and Germany is more than 50 per cent. of average earnings, yet in this country under this Government it is only 18 per cent., and falling? Within 20 years, under current policy, it will he less than 10 per cent. Is it not symbolic of this Thatcher Government that the only people in this country who are denied a rise in living standards are the pensioners and the unemployed?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is still too hooked on the arguments of the hustings to recognise the reality of the matter. We have heard the arguments that are being put forward and of this so-called league of shame. In Europe this country is second only to Denmark on spending per capita on the elderly. That is the essence of our commitment to the elderly in this country in real terms. We make that commitment clear and we are second only on spending on the elderly per capita in the league in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the proposal to close four hospitals in the Liverpool inner city area.

None, Sir.

May I inform the Minister that any proposals to close the world-famous St. Paul's eye hospital, two specialised maternity hospitals and the women's hospital and to locate them in a Victorian-style royal infirmary will be fiercely opposed by the Health Service trade unions, community health councils, doctors and patients? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when she was talking about Victorian values?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the district strategic plan, which was published on 8 June and on which comments are required by 31 August. My cursory first glance at the plan—we received it only a few days ago—revealed that there will be a new development at Broad Green hospital, with new build accommodation for ophthalmology upgraded accomodation at the Liverpool royal infirmary site and a new combined unit for obstetrics and gynaecology. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to Victorian values. Liverpool, like many other cities, is suffering from a surfeit of small, old Victorian hospitals from the last century. The health authority is trying to build a Health Service for the next century.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how many the waiting lists in the north-west region have been reduced since June 1979.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists.

In the north-west region between 31 March 1979 and 30 September 1986 waiting lists fell by over 16,000, or 21 per cent. The need to make significant improvements in waiting times is a high priority for the Health Service, supported by the £50 million waiting list fund. I am determined that this drive will continue.

Can my right hon. Friend say what effect the waiting list initiative announced by his predecessor will have on the north-west region?

At this stage the north-west regional allocation will be £2·3 million, which we expect to produce results that will look after an extra 11,240 in-patients and day cases and 7,280 extra out-patients. That is in the first instance.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the waiting list fund constitutes a useful precedent for the official allocation of funds in the Health Service? If he does, will he ensure that it is extended to other areas, so that the most efficient use is made of taxpayers' money?

I am answering a question only about the Health Service and the special fund. My hon. Friend is right. The National Health Service is to be commended for the way in which, in the first year, it has made more effective use of beds and theatres and has enabled 100,000 additional waiting list cases to be treated by the use of the fund. I expect it to do equally well in the second year of the fund with the second £25 million.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received a report from his colleague the Government Chief Whip about information received during the election campaign in my constituency concerning the shortage of skilled labour in the Yorkshire area? When will the Government do something about generating jobs and employment opportunities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, where there is a shortage of job opportunities and skilled labour? When are the Government going to do something about it?

I did not receive the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but since 1979 the Government have spent £13·5 billion on employment measures and training, helping about 6·5 million people. Our intention is to continue that work.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new office, which has given infinite pleasure to all his colleagues and, I suspect, to many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why the Government have not seen fit to include in the Gracious Speech any proposals touching the Warnock committee recommendations, at least one of which—experimentation on the human embryo—caused great abhorrence at the time and has caused widespread anxiety ever since? Is my right hon. Friend aware that such experimentation is now taking place without any legal protection?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. I know the interest that he has taken in this matter. The Government are now considering very carefully responses to the recent consultation document on the range of difficult and developing issues dealt with in the Warnock report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be making an announcement very shortly about the next steps. I can, however, make it clear that it remains our intention to introduce legislation in this Parliament.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now repeat the assurances given by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign that the Government are opposed to the imposition of VAT on food, fuel, children's clothing, children's shoes, new building, books, periodicals and newspapers?

I am happy to reaffirm what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. The Prime Minister said that we had no intention of imposing VAT on food, gas, electricity, young children's clothes and shoes.

In which case, how does the Leader of the House account for the fact that Lord Cockfield, the Government's nominee in the Common Market, will tomorrow propose the abolition of zero rating and the imposition of VAT at between 4 and 9 per cent. on all those items which the right hon. Gentleman has now said will not carry VAT?

The right hon. Gentleman knows better than to say that European Commissioners act as nominees for a Government. Lord Cockfield will do what he thinks to be right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is Prime Minister of this country, and I can assure the House that the undertaking that she gave during the general election campaign will be maintained.

The Leader of the House can absolve himself from the allegation of equivocation and the Prime Minister from the allegation of deception by simply saying here and now that the Government propose to veto the Cockfield proposals. Do they, or do they not?

I have stated what the Prime Minister said, and reaffirmed it. At present the Prime Minister is in Brussels at the European Council meeting and she will make a statement to the House later this week. It would be extremely foolish of me to say anything more until that time.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the Prime Minister that her attempts to bring common sense into the ludicrous financing of the Community has the wholehearted support of the country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rapacious attitude of the Socialist Greek Government is entirely out of accord with the spirit of the Community?

My hon. Friend makes his points well. However, it would be wrong for me to say anything about the European Council while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is there.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

In Scotland we have legislation for the poll tax. The financial director for Glasgow has stated that at today's rates in Glasgow it would cost every household member aged 18 and over £292. That means that some families who are the poorest of the poor will have to pay in excess of £1,000. As a former Whip, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the English legislation comes up every Tory Member will go into the Division Lobby in favour of the English poll tax?

I must say that the revelations of what the poll tax will be in some Socialist-controlled local authority areas relate to the level of spending of those local authorities more than anything else. The community charge will not be unfair, because 69 per cent. of single pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off. There will be generous rebates of up to 80 per cent. for all those on low incomes. Income support levels will be increased to reflect the average charge. The severely mentally handicapped and old people living in homes and hospitals will also be exempt. That amounts to millions of people.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect the clamour in Scotland when the rating revaluation took place there? Is he aware of the concern that would he aroused in England if rates were continued and a rating revaluation inevitably took place? Will he give an undertaking to the House that the Government will honour their manifesto commitment and give the people of England the benefits of the community charge that have already been given to people in Scotland?

My hon. Friend goes right to the heart of the matter. The existing domestic rating system is unfair and discredited. Local authorities are not properly accountable to ratepayers. Out of 35 million electors in England, only 18 million are liable to pay rates, and only 12 million pay them directly and in full. As my hon. Friend points out, a revaluation would bring chaos and would not restore accountability.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the poll tax, when applied, will mean that a working spouse will be legally responsible for the poll tax of the non-working partner? Will he confirm that a married pensioner couple will end up paying two poll taxes? Will he further confirm that the poorest people will end up having to pay some of this disgraceful charge?

I have already said that the community charge will be payable by all adults except those who are exempt, for example the severely mentally handicapped and old people living in homes and hospitals. People on low incomes will receive generous rebates and income support will be increased to cover the average charge.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of us are looking forward to the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice Bill so that when judges pass too soft sentences those sentences may be reviewed? At the same time does he agree that it is important that we reexamine what is the use of reasonable force by people defending themselves, their homes and families against thugs and burglars? Is it not time that the law was changed so that it was more on the side of the victim than that of the villain?

The Government will continue to make the fight against crime one of our top priorities. We have already reintroduced the Criminal Justice Bill, which, among other things, will ensure that lenient sentences can be referred to the Court of Appeal. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a note of my hon. Friend's other questions.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will the Leader of the House take time today to end the press speculation rife in Scotland to the effect that the Ministry of Defence does not intend to award the contract that it promised 18 months ago to Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde? Is he aware that this will not only add to the lengthening dole queues there, but will end Scott Lithgow as a shipyard on the Clyde?

I do not think that it is right for me at this Dispatch Box to end speculation, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes an announcement as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to encourage the moderate elements in the teaching profession to raise professional standards? Does he agree that Mr. Fred Jarvis and the NUT reckon to do for education what Mr. Arthur Scargill and the NUM have done for coal?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that we want a teaching profession which is professional in its standards, is properly paid and meets the challenges of the end of this century and of the next century. We shall introduce a major Education Bill in this Session to deal with many of those matters.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will the Lord Privy Seal look at press reports published at the weekend, which showed that NIREX was looking for possible sites to dump nuclear waste in my constituency of Ynys Môn, and in Wales generally? Will he assure the House that there will he no dumping of nuclear waste in any part of Wales, bearing in mind what happened in various marginal constituencies in England just before the general election?

I sat for many months in my previous incarnation in the House unable to utter a word about NIREX. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I shall not add anything more to that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recently published London Business School economic outlook, which predicts four years of solid economic growth, a sustained fall in unemployment and subdued inflation? Is this not further proof of the success of the Government's economic strategy?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the report. It is another example of increasing confidence in Britain, bringing greater economic growth and prosperity. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to NEDC later this week, he may wish to refer to the seventh successive year of growth. with gross domestic product at record levels. In 1986, inflation was at its lowest for more than 20 years. Our growth is faster than that of all the major EEC countries, and investment growth has achieved nearly 4 per cent. a year since the 1983 election.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Do the Government have any plans, if not in this Session certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament, to reform the national dock labour scheme, which is the antithesis of what the Government stand for?

I have nothing to say on that subject at present, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

We all try in this debate to make our first major post-election speech rather than the election speech in which we took so much pride—but I suppose that it is inevitable that memories of the election should hover over this week of Hansard.

So far as home affairs are concerned, when I think back on the election, I am not really thinking of the curious triangular exchanges in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I were involved with Mrs. Williams. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman and his debating powers, but I do not think that any of us were at our best as we hurried from one local television station to another, like members of some demented repertory company trying to memorise our lines as best we could. I believe that the broadcasters need to think of a different form for such exchanges if they want to throw light, rather than heat, on the matters before the electorate. I cast that thought before them.

I am thinking rather of the dozens of conversations in market places and on doorsteps which, as I imagine every other candidate found, touched and sometimes focused on the question of crime. No one could emerge from this election campaign without a clear impression of the anxiety, and often the anger, which crime and the fear of crime arouse among our fellow citizens.

The opposition parties made no headway on this front because their analysis was not credible and their recommendations, when different from what we were doing anyway, seemed downright dangerous. It is not credible to make a general connection between the level of unemployment and the level of recorded crime. This is a contention that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends frequently made, but it is not sustained by serious academic research. It ignores the fact that one third of crime is committed by juveniles; it flies in the face of experience in the 1930s; and it flies in the face of the regular experience of the victims of crime. Certainly it is true that in some areas, particularly the most discouraged areas, social conditions have a role in the fostering and in the prevention of crime, and that is a point to which I would like to return. But to make a crude general link between unemployment and crime is an affront to the unemployed and incredible to everybody else.

No one in his senses supposes that there is a simple or single answer to the crime figures. But, after nearly two years in this job, I am clear that there is nothing inevitable about them. Our first task must be to strengthen further the law and order services, to which we have already given a unique priority.

I turn first to the men and money that are available to the police. The police have received a bigger increase in resources than any other major public service. In real terms, spending on the police in this financial year will be some 45 per cent. higher than in 1978–79.

At the end of April, police manpower in England and Wales, including both police officers and civilians in support, rose to a record level of 163,500. That is an increase of more than 17,300, including 11,300 extra police officers. This expansion is continuing. We are just about half way through the further programme of expansion that I announced on 20 May last year. I then foreshadowed increases of 3,200 extra police officers and 2,000 civilian staff in England and Wales. The extra civilian staff are expected to free over 1,000 additional police officers for operational duties.

On the issue of the recruitment of police officers and others, is the Home Secretary satisfied with the incidence of recruitment of women doctors to the ranks of police surgeons, or should not more be done in this regard? In the second Criminal Justice Bill will he continue the objective of diminishing the distress experienced by child witnesses in sexual and child abuse cases?

I am not responsible for the first matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in-so-far as it affects Scotland. However, I shall certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives the information that he seeks and I shall write to him about England and Wales. The Criminal Justice Bill will again contain the provision about allowing children to give evidence through a video link rather than in court. I think that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that provision.

The position about police manpower is rather different in London. In London there is no problem about authorisation. I have already given approval for an increase in the Metropolitan police establishment of 600 extra officers and 400 civilian staff. The actual strength of the Metropolitan police, though at a record level, has not kept pace with the increased ceilings. The Metropolitan police are now recruiting fast to fill this gap. They know that the authorisation and the money are there and that, other things being equal, I would expect to authorise a further increase in establishment next April.

Will the Home Secretary respond to people's concern not just by increasing manpower but by seeing that the clear-up rate is improved? As he knows, the real problem in London is that the clear-up rate has got worse and people's perception of the chance of the forces of crime prevention helping the individual to reduce crime is negative and pessimistic.

I am talking about manpower. The hon. Gentleman asks about the clear-up rate. I want to see the police in London and elsewhere being able to concentrate their efforts on the more serious and violent crimes and allowing crime prevention properly to get into action to prevent crimes against property, which constitute the great bulk of crimes. I shall return to that point shortly.

Before my right hon. Friend departs from the clear-up rate of the Metropolitan police, will he tell the House whether he agrees that the Metropolitan police are absolutely right not to do that which is done by many provincial police forces who trawl prisoners and the courts clearing up other offences merely to improve statistically the clear-up rate? Does he agree that the Metropolitan police are right to concentrate on crime prevention and the detection of more serious crimes?

I am all against purely statistical exercises of the kind that my hon. Friend has mentioned. As he knows, we are trying to harmonise and bring some sort of regularity into the practices of different police forces in the taking-into-account exercise.

Outside London, I have to match the applications that I receive from police authorities and joint boards with the pace and extent of the expansion programme that I have just mentioned. As most hon. Members know from constituency experience, this is not easy.

Every police authority and joint board worth its salt can find some special reason why its own force should receive a greater share of the expansion than others. I have, indeed, increased their appetite by putting the percentage of the money that the Home Office finds for police expenditure up to 51 per cent. and with my colleagues altering the grant arrangements so that forces with the biggest establishments get the most grant. I have thus made it easier for police authorities to finance the expansion now under way.

In making these decisions about the further expansion of the police I shall, of course, continue to rely to a large extent on the professional judgment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Obviously, I cannot accept the simple proposition that more police officers lead to a decline in recorded crime, because anyone who studies the facts for a moment will see that that is not necessarily so. The case for expansion is rather that there are specific tasks in the prevention and detection of crime, in the maintenance of public order and in the upholding of the law which only police officers can perform and for which they need extra resources. The police are, of course, in competition for those resources with hospitals, schools, and everything else paid for by the public purse. My colleagues have hitherto agreed, on the basis that I have described, that the police should have priority and I am confident that they will continue to do so.

I have been following the Home Secretary's comments very carefully. When representatives of the West Midlands police force visited the Home Secretary in May and asked for an increase in establishment of about 1,000 officers over the next three years at the rate of 300 a year, why did the Home Secretary feel unable to accede to any part of that request, apart from the provision of more civilians? I am sure that the Home Secretary is aware that, regrettably, the west midlands now has the fastest rise in crime in the United Kingdom.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point lies in my next paragraph, which contains specific reference to the west midlands and the experience of that force.

I do not believe that we have come to the end of the possibilities of civilianisation by any means. A civilian working for the police costs about half as much as a trained police officer. It must be right to ask chief officers again and again to consider whether there are jobs that are now being carried out by police officers that could be done by civilians.

I do not believe that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has grasped the point that civilianisation resulted in the release of 1,000 police officers to operational duties between 1983 and 1985. During 1986 more than two thirds of the extra 893 civilians recruited in provincial forces enabled police officers to be released to operational duties. As the hon. Member for Erdington accurately stated, that is why I have recently approved an increase of 427 in the number of civilian staff in the west midlands. That is expected to release 382 police officers in the west midlands for operational duties. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question. There are more professional police officers entering operational duties as a result of decisions about civilianisation. However, there is more to it than that. In West Bromwich—which is not the patch covered by the hon. Member for Erdington, but is covered by the force operating in his area—there is a particularly interesting experiment going on in an attempt to expand still further the scope of civilian work, including the desk work and paper work which has hitherto been carried out by police officers and which the chief constable believes might be quite properly and effectively carried out by civilians. I am watching that experiment in West Bromwich closely to see how it works out.

These matters are not confined to the west midlands, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware. The police force covering east and west Sussex has been in touch with my right hon. Friend and his Ministers about manning. There is a pressing requirement for more police officers, even after allowing for the further civilianisation programme to which my right hon. Friend has just referred. As my right hon. Friend has just said that he will consider what force increases are required and where, will my right hon. Friend take account of the special consideration due to Gatwick—I will not rehearse all the arguments on that matter now—and the requirements of the force covering east and west Sussex?

Sussex will not be forgotten. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, my new colleague on the Front Bench, the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), and a host of powerful right hon. and hon. Friends will not allow me to forget Sussex. The force in Sussex will be treated on the criteria that I have announced and I hope that it will not be long before we can make an announcement about the Sussex force.

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he recall his experiences in Northern Ireland, when the civilianisation of certain jobs within police stations went ahead? To my knowledge, not one policeman was released on to the streets to carry out operational duties. Rather, there appeared to be little protection from the police against malicious complaints and the extra police who were released were used to investigate those malicious complaints. Would not the Home Secretary be better employed in thinking of ways in which to protect the police, as they go about a difficult task, from the explosion of malicious complaints to which they are now subject?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that across the water and here Her Majesty's Ministers have given full support to the police, and that includes putting in place in England and Wales a system for investigating police complaints, which goes a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Let me pass from the police to penalties; because police, penalties and prisons are the main sectors of society's front line against crime. The Gracious Speech foreshadows the reintroduction of the Criminal Justice Bill. I do not intend to go through its provisions in any detail since they are familiar to most hon. Members. The reform of extradition, the increase in the maximum prison term for carrying firearms in pursuit of crime, the criminal injuries proposals, are simply three of the important reforms which will once again be in the Bill. I am glad that with the Opposition's co-operation we have managed to put on the statute book the proposal for a serious fraud office and work on establishing that is going ahead.

Let me mention two important topics where we are considering changes in the Bill. We are deeply concerned about the widespread use of offensive weapons. We are committed in our election manifesto to taking action on the sale and possession of items which have no legitimate use but which can be used to injure and maim. I welcome an offer which I have received from the right hon. Member for Gorton to join us in discussing how the law relating to offensive weapons, particularly knives, could be strengthened. I have already set in hand a study of how the law relating to the possession of knives and other sharp-bladed instruments might be reinforced. I look forward to discussing with the right hon. Gentleman whether we can achieve common ground on this urgent matter in the hope that the Criminal Justice Bill will turn out to be the right vehicle for making a change.

Is the Home Secretary aware how disturbed public opinion is by the recent publicity, certainly on television, where the police showed how easy it is to buy knives that are clearly offensive, and where, presumably, the only purpose in buying such knives is for criminal acts? I recognise some of the difficulties in drafting legislation, but is it not necessary to make it far more difficult for such knives to be bought?

There is a difference between objects which can be used only for offensive purposes—for which we have a specific proposal in our manifesto—and knives—the schoolboy with a knife in his pocket; the housewife who has bought a bread knife at the supermarket; the carpenter with a chisel in his bag. That is the problem that we need to discuss.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that police forces have echoed the concern that he has expressed today about the carrying of knives. If he can introduce legislation along those lines, he will also remove an anomaly which may be appearing and which is linked with the carrying of firearms, where the proposed legislation will presumably recommend a possible life sentence. Many people would be concerned if they found that there was still no serious sentence for the carrying of knives, which should possibly attract a life sentence.

The possession of an offensive weapon is a serious offence. The question is how to define it. However, I note my hon. Friend's point, which has validity.

We are looking again at the problem of the occasional over-lenient sentence which can do so much harm to public confidence. This has a long history. Anyone who listened late at night to the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in support of clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, will realise that there was a much better case for the clause than was generally realised. It ran into strong, though contradictory, criticism in this House, and in another place, from those who thought it went too far and from those who wanted it to go further.

We are actively looking at means by which this original proposal could be strengthened. My own reservations. like those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney, about giving the Court of Appeal the right to increase a sentence have been practical rather than based on principle, although I recognise that there is principle here which is of great concern to many hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen in all parts of the House. My concern has been with the effect on the prison population and with the practical effect on the burdens of the new Crown Prosecution Service, which is still in its infancy. However, I am impressed by the need to go further than we originally proposed and I set in hand work to this effect before the election. The Bill will be republished tomorrow and will contain the original clause, but it can, and I hope will, be amended on its passage through Parliament to reflect the results of the policy exercise now under way following the debates on the Floor of the House, upstairs in Committee and in another place.

I must refer to the prisons, because this is, at present, the single most difficult responsibility which we carry in the Home Office. On 26 June, the prison population stood at 50,073 with an additional 506 prisoners locked in police cells. The system is designed to hold around 41,700 prisoners. This strain inevitably places tremendous difficulties on the capacity of the staff and system to cope. We are witnessing, month by month, a dangerous race between the rise in the number of prison places as the result of our prison capital building programme and the rise in the number of those sent to prison by the courts.

In the short term we are doing all we can to squeeze the greatest possible number of places out of the prison estate. Three detention centres have been converted into youth custody centres and another two to adult male prisons to improve the match between the accommodation available and the composition of the prison population. Other changes are planned, including the conversion of a category D prison, Ashwell, to a category C prison later this year with a net gain of 350 places, and of another detention centre to an adult female establishment.

In the longer term we remain committed to improving conditions for prisoners and staff by reducing overcrowding. This is not a luxury but a necessity, as anyone familiar with our prisons knows. The prison building programme includes a total of 20 prisons, providing 10,500 new places by 1995. Alongside this the refurbishment and maintenance programme will produce a further 6,900 new places over the same period as well as providing significant improvements in conditions.

Is there any progress in the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts on the need for a forensic science laboratory such as was suggested by Dr. Brian Caddy? I understand that Mr. Gordon Wasserman of his Department is chairing some kind of committee into that problem. In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's experience on the question of the Birmingham six, into which I do not wish to drag him, could we have some assurance that thought is being given to independent forensic science advice?

I am expecting no fewer than three reports in July on the future of the forensic science service. I am not sure whether they will touch upon the hon. Gentleman's constitutional point, but I hope to announce decisions about the future of the forensic science service as quickly as I can.

Before leaving the subject of new prisons, can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has written to all the local authorities in Cleveland, asking them whether they have a suitable location for a new prison? Is it not the case that because they are all Socialist-controlled authorities none of them will agree to that? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will not be overridden by the local government Labour party but will put a prison in Cleveland, where it is obviously needed?

I hope that local authorities will take account of the clear national need for prisons. My hon. Friend knows that at the end of the day I have planning powers, but I would much rather proceed with cooperation. However, that assumes some understanding of the national interest by those concerned.

The size of the remand population is part of the problem. There has been a surge in recent years and about one fifth of those now in prison are on remand. We must take practical steps to relieve that pressure. The steps include the increase since 1979 of over 300 in the number of places in bail and other hostels, and various schemes which are helping courts to take more informed decisions about the granting of bail. Practice varies a lot across the country, and we are asking magistrates to examine the reasons for that.

While the Home Secretary is examining the problem of remand prisoners being held in prisons, will he also examine the increasing use of custodial places for holding people under the immigration law, and will he ensure that in future they are released on temporary admission rather than being held in remand centres, often for long periods?

As the hon. Gentleman knows—although I do not think that he approves—I have recently taken steps to provide specific detention accommodation for the type of people to whom he refers on the Earl William, thus removing the need to put them in prisons. They are not prisoners; they are not on remand before a court. The more that we can provide for them separately, the better.

rose——

I really must get on. I have been quite liberal in giving way.

I turn now to crime prevention, which I believe holds the key to improving the general crime figures. We need to look at the portrait of crime in Britain. Less than 5 per cent. of it involves the use of violence against the person. The most serious offences make up one third of 1 per cent. of recorded offences. We are not alone in experiencing the changes that we have unfortunately experienced. International comparisons are difficult, because the Interpol figures lag behind events, and comparisons are bound to be imperfect. But looking at the increase in recorded crime in England and Wales between 1979 and 1983—the last available date—we find that it was roughly the same here as in West Germany, while France and the Netherlands showed increases of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., roughly double ours, and Spain of over 100 per cent.

Let us look at the components of that situation. Our figures for homicide in 1984 were 2 per 100,000, compared with 4·5 per 100,000 for Germany and 4·6 for France. Our figures for rape were 2·4 per 100,000 compared with 9·7 for Germany and 5·3 per 100,000 in France. These are horrible crimes, and each example of them is one too many. But in these types of violent crime our record, although far from good, is better than that of our neighbours. Where we do much worse is at the lower end of the pyramid—the great mass of crimes against property—for example, burglaries, theft of cars or theft of possessions from cars, where our figures have deteriorated sharply.

These crimes against property are in general much easier to prevent than do detect. The prevention of crime is not a matter for the police alone. It is a matter for all of us, for Government Departments, for companies and trade unions, for voluntary agencies, for schools and social services, for the media and for each and every parent. There has been an outburst of activity on this front which we have welcomed and stimulated. The Home Office has sponsored five pilot projects in Bolton, Croydon, Wellingborough, Tyneside and Swansea, which have brought together the various local agencies and individuals to identify the problems of local crime and to seek solutions to them. I want to bring that sort of cooperative approach increasingly to bear on tackling the crime problems of the inner cities.

Even more remarkable are the 30,000 neighbourhood watch schemes which have sprung up, not because the Government have decreed or subsidised them, but out of the concern of individual citizens to achieve safer homes and safer streets. The time has come to take a further step forward. We intend shortly to start consultations with interested groups for the setting up of a new national body for crime prevention. I want this new national association for crime prevention to co-ordinate, stimulate and support local crime prevention activity. It will provide an umbrella organisation for neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels. It will, I hope, link with schemes for the unemployed through the community programme, and with the work of organisations such as NACRO.

There is a clear and close link between the efforts of the Home Office and the police to encourage the prevention and detection of crime and the policies that the Government propose for our cities as a whole. The Home Office is keenly involved in these proposals, partly because of our interest in the struggle against crime and partly because of our responsibility for community relations.

Good relations between the communities in our cities is obviously crucial to the harmony of those cities, and such good relations depend in turn on a system of immigration control that is firm and fair. The Gracious Speech referred to the Bill that we shall be bringing forward to make our immigration control operate more effectively, and to close a number of loopholes that have become apparent since the passage of the Immigration Act 1971. The Bill will deal with the problem of overstaying, with the problem of polygamous settlement and with the problem of those who come here claiming British citizenship without first having established that claim overseas. We intend to repeal section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, which gives a special position to the wives and children of those settled here when the Act took effect. A man who at present benefits from this provision will still be able to be joined by his wife and children but, like the families of other people settled here, they will have to meet the normal requirements of the immigration rules. In particular, husbands will have to show that they can maintain and accommodate the wives and children whom they intend to bring. I believe that that is perfectly sensible, and that the provisions of this Bill, when published and debated, will be accepted as common sense.

Who is going to make this massively subjective judgment on the suitability of the husband to receive his family?

It will be made by exactly the people who now make it in respect of the great majority of people who try to bring dependants here. We are talking about the distinction which the law at present makes between those who were already settled here in January 1973 and those who have brought dependants here since then. I do not believe that that distinction is any longer justified, but the people who make the decisions will be exactly the same as those who do so now.

rose——

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already done so once.

Our policy of firm and fair immigration control needs to be seen against the background of our general policy for wider opportunities—a policy which is just as important for the ethnic minorities who live in our cities as for anyone else. Twenty or 30 years ago, many immigrant families settled in the hearts of our cities because housing was cheap and jobs were available. Now many of them find themselves trapped, with their families, in a cycle of deprivation. I am delighted that we have made some progress over the last decade in changing attitudes. It must be good news that there were no National Front candidates running in the last election.

We did not need any.

Look behind you.

It must be good news—I am now answering the giggles on the Opposition Benches—that the problems of immigration and race relations were discussed in a peaceful and reasonable way at the election. Many conversations that took place during the election demonstrated that Asian and black electors are increasingly casting their votes in line with their judgment of the issues, and not according to someone else's racial stereotypes. The effort that the police are now investing in dealing with racial attacks is more clearly recognised. The recruitment of black and Asian Britons to the police service is making progress, although the total figure of just under 1,000 is still much too low. I believe that gradually, step by step, city by city, we are showing that the ladders of opportunity in our professions, in our industries and in our public sector, are open for all to climb.

It is clear what the Opposition are about from their choice of theme for today's debate. They are simply continuing the argument about deprivation and inequality that they lost during the election. They are trying to represent the Conservatives as a party concerned only with the comfort of its supporters. But, if that were the position, we would not be putting forward the proposals in the Gracious Speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) made the point eloquently in the House yesterday, and in a newspaper today. If we were simply concerned with the comfort of our supporters, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education would not be concentrating, as he is, on enhancing the quality of state education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would not be concentrating, as he is, on housing plans to improve the opportunities of council tenants. My right hon. Friends in other Departments would not be concentrating, as they are, on stimulating job opportunities in our cities.

We believe in individualism. We believe in the right of the individual to pile up a good standard of living for himself and his family; we believe that that is natural, right and necessary. But we do not believe that it is enough. We look beyond that to the role of the active citizen—black, Asian or white—who uses his time and energy to improve the community in which he finds himself. We are looking to the active parent to work alongside teachers in correcting the defects in our schools. We are looking to the active tenant to help to put right what is wrong on the huge housing estates. We are looking to the active citizen to work with his or her neighbours and the police in neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels to defeat crime. We are also looking to the active business man and to the active voluntary sector to stimulate enterprise and jobs in the discouraged areas.

We do not abandon or renounce the role of the state or of public institutions, but we are clear that the problems that we see—and I think that we see them clearly—are best tackled not just by multiplying the powers and resources of the state and local government but by adding to the public effort the ingenuity and the generosity of the active citizen. That is clearly the spirit in which the Gracious Speech was conceived. I believe that it will commend itself to the House and to our fellow citizens as the plans in it mature and are brought to success.

It is as well to remind the House that the theme of this debate, as announced by Mr. Speaker, is deprivation and inequality of opportunity in Britain. Until the last minute or two of the Home Secretary's speech one could never have guessed that; instead, what he tried to do—with great success—was to dull the House with an overdose of tranquillisers. At least he was wise enough not to repeat during his speech his invitation to the leader of the Social Democratic party to join the Tory party. Perhaps on reflection the Home Secretary realised that if the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) were to join the Tories, his own hopes of becoming party leader would be outflanked from the Right.

We note that the leader of the SDP is present, taking time off from turmoil in toytown. His predicament is best summed up in the words of that haunting song from the appropriately named musical "Bells are Ringing":

"The party's over

It's time to call it a day

No matter how you pretend

You knew it would end this way."

The song contains the sage advice:

"It's time to wind up the masquerade."

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now do that and take part in his retreat to Devonport les Deux Eglises.

The Home Secretary's speech today was only the latest of a series of ministerial pronouncements that demonstrate their total insensitivity to the problems of the deprived areas. Last night we listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was put up at the Dispatch Box no doubt because he is the Cabinet Minister with the most northerly seat in England—nearly 100 miles north of London. We have heard the ineffable Lord Young attacking elected local authorities—pretty rich from someone who has never been elected to anything—and being reproved for his ignorance by the director of the Merseyside chamber of commerce.

There has also been the Secretary of State for the Environment, a person to whom we are advised to pay serious attention. According to an imaginative writer in the Financial Times, the Secretary of State for the Environment is

"emerging as the Tory party's thinker on the regions."

Lately, we have been treated to some of the right hon. Gentleman's most profound thoughts. He told us that there were no golf courses for Japanese inward investors in the north of England, a part of Britain where it is almost impossible to move without breaking an ankle through stepping into a golf course bunker. He announced, with that elegance for which he is famous:

"There has bloody well got to be a golf course,"

and added :

"There ain't no room for prejudice".

If the Secretary of State for the Environment does not know much about golf courses, he is certainly an expert on prejudice.

About my own part of the country, Manchester, the Secretary of State declared :

"An American executive doesn't want to live in a council house somewhere in the back of Manchester."

With my right hon. and hon. Friends, I represent "somewhere in the back of Manchester," a city which, like so many other towns and cities in England, Scotland and Wales, three weeks ago booted out its last remaining Tory Member of Parliament. I can tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that, whatever the wishes of American executives may be, thousands of my constituents would dearly like to have the chance of a council house. However, because of this Government they cannot have one. They cannot have one because the Secretary of State for the Environment has wiped out completely Manchester's housing subsidies. He has cut our housing investment allocation by 74 per cent., and he has reduced our housing programme from 2,200 a year to 77.

What is most significant, though, is the implication, from the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the only way that we can have employment in Britain is through inward investment from foreign controlled multinationals. What an insult to British invention, innovation and enterprise.

An even bigger insult is, of course, the appointment as Secretary of State for Wales of an absentee landlord, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). Just because the right hon. Member for Worcester can afford to buy Wales does not mean that he has the right to rule it. The Secretary of State for Wales is just a satrap of the Queen Empress herself, the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. The main headline in The Daily Telegraph on Friday announced with due pomp that the right hon. Lady is to set out on a royal progress of her outlying dominions. The front page streamer headline in The Daily Telegraph marvelled at it and said:

"Thatcher visit to 'front line' inner cities."

It is, of course, an unprecedented move for the right hon. Lady to come to places such as we represent, and it exposes her to a certain amount of risk.

In an interview in the Sunday Telegraph the right hon. Lady likened her fellow citizens in our great cities, which have voted in Labour councils, to, as she put it :

"Bacteria on a culture controlled by inner city socialists."

The Prime Minister says that she wants such people to be regarded as

"individuals to be treated with respect."

On her anthropological safaris, I hope that she will do that. I hope that she will regard these visits, not as fleeting photo-opportunities, but as chances to talk to people and hear their problems. I hope that she will go to Dumbarton road in Glasgow, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and talk to the pensioners who, day after day, queue outside a bakery to buy yesterday's bread, sold at half price.

I hope that the Prime Minister will visit the centre in Glasgow where teenagers are awarded certificates for skill in filling out job application forms, even if they rarely get the jobs for which they apply. I hope that she will meet the Manchester housewife who told me that her 13-year-old daughter had said to her, "Mum, when I leave school, how much do you want for my keep out of my dole money?" That is the kind of ethos that the Government are inculcating into the areas that we represent.

In her interview in the Sunday Telegraph the Prime Minister said :

"This country can never be strong unless the most able are allowed to contribute to the full."

I agree with that. I hope that before her visit the Prime Minister will brief herself about deprivation and division in our society and about how millions of able people are being prevented, not only from making their contribution to the full, but from making any kind of contribution at all to our society.

In the deprived areas of Britain—inner-city areas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said yesterday, in other areas, too—disadvantage starts right at the beginning of life, at birth itself. One of the most telling indicators of deprivation is low birth weight. Birth weight varies significantly, according to region. Babies weighing 2,500g or less at birth are classified as having a low birth weight, and in pretty well every inner-city area there are far more babies in this category than in the nation, averaged as a whole. Sandwell, Newham, Nottingham, Hartlepool and Wolverhampton provide especially shocking figures, but dozens of other deprived areas have a similar story to tell.

Low birth weight carries risks of poor health, handicap and possibly early death, so it is not surprising that there is an alarming regional differential in perinatal mortality. All southern areas have below average perinatal mortality, but the north, Yorkshire, the west midlands, Merseyside, the north-west and Wales have above average perinatal mortality rates. In the most deprived areas of Britain babies simply have less chance of surviving into infancy. If they do survive, they live less long. Life expectancy in deprived areas is significantly lower than in the rest of the country. It is 32 per cent. lower in Burnley, and 23 per cent. lower in Blackburn and Middlesbrough. That is because deprivation often leads to chronic ill health.

The poorer one is, or the lower one's wage, the greater one's chance of being the victim of chronic sickness. The update of the Black report, published only this year, shows that that gap has widened. That update compares 1971 with 1981 to 1983 and shows

"A widening gap in all cause death rates between manual and non-manual classes".

The Black report puts it this way :

"A child born to professional parents … can expect to spend over five years more as a living person than a child born to an unskilled manual household".

Death from heart disease, for example, is much higher in the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, the west midlands, Scotland and Wales than in the rest of Britain. Workers in manual occupations face considerable risks of disease and death. In 1984, 432 manual workers were killed at work and another 12,246 were seriously injured. Another 1,068 died of industrial diseases. No one ever got injured at work in the City of London, except perhaps from a bruised elbow shoving someone else aside.

Chances of getting a job are adversely affected by Government policy. One way of obtaining a decent well-paid job has traditionally been through obtaining an apprenticeship, but under this Government the annual number of apprenticeships has fallen from 155,000 to 64,000. Another way to rewarding employment is to get qualifications through higher education, but the chance of obtaining higher education depends very much on the would-be student's station in life. Among 17 to 19-yearolds, of those with fathers in the professions, 72 per cent. are in full-time higher education. Of sons and daughters of semi-skilled or unskilled workers, the proportion in full-time higher education is not 72 per cent., but 27 per cent. Of those accepted into British universities, 70 per cent. come from the top two social classes, 6 per cent. from the semi-skilled class and I per cent. from the unskilled social class.

The system of divide and rule fostered by this Government reduces opportunities all along the way. The Government's own figures show that the chances of getting a job are worst in the west midlands, the northwest, the north, Wales and Scotland. Chances of losing a job are highest in Yorkshire and Humberside, the northwest, Wales, Scotland and the north of England. No wonder that unemployment is worst in the deprived areas.

The programme and partnership authorities in England and urban areas in Scotland account for 33 per cent. of the economically active population, but contain 46 per cent. of those who are unemployed. The Secretary of State for Education and Science smugly prates on about choice, and we got it again from the Home Secretary today. I should like the Secretary of State for Education and Science to explain exactly what kind of system of choice gives one of his constituents in Mole Valley eight times the chance of getting a job compared with the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Of course such a glaring inequality is not an example of proper choice, but it is a precise example of Tory choice.

The right hon. Gentleman is entertaining the House to a most interesting sociological tour which rather implies that problems that have been known for at least a century—and which have been disclosed in virtually every serious sociological analysis in this country and in virtually every other Western democracy for at least 100 years—are somehow unique to the present Government. How can he possibly sustain such an argument?

If the hon. Gentleman can spare me time at the end of this debate, I shall take him through the material that I have here showing that the gaps have widened during the period of this Government.

Just to make sure that inequity is maintained in employment as well as in unemployment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves in and imposes the most glaringly unfair differential taxation. In income tax, national insurance, VAT and rates, a married man with two children on 75 per cent. of average earnings is paying £17·97 a week more than when this Government came to office, whereas a man with the same family responsibilities, but with 10 times average earnings, is paying £46·57 a week less in taxation. No wonder that there is a marked regional maldistribution in ownership of the material possessions in life which this Government exhort everyone to buy—and by those possessions they test their worth in society.

No wonder that people in the north, Yorkshire and Humberside, the east and west midlands, the north-west, Scotland and Wales are less likely to have telephones or to own deep freezers than are those in the rest of Britain. No wonder that under this Government the number of low-paid employees has risen by 1 million, that the number living in poverty has risen by 4 million and that the number living on supplementary benefits has risen by 6 million. No wonder that our nation is so wretchedly ill-housed, with a backlog for repair and renewal of £20 billion in the public sector and £30 billion in the Government's much-vaunted private sector, including the owner-occupied sector, where the Government boast about the increase in owner-occupation but do not tell us about the unavailability of improvement and repair grants for people who own houses and who would like them but cannot get them because of cuts in the housing investment programme.

This Government's answer is not to help, but to harm. Two weeks ago Mr. Peter Kegg, president of the Institute of Housing, drew attention to the terrible scourge of homelessness and bad housing. He pointed out that 25,000 people are living night by night in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Mr. Kegg said:

"Most will be suffering the most squalid conditions".

He pointed out that last year 250,000 were accepted as homeless by local authorities, and that Britain spends the lowest amount on housing, both in the public sector and private sector, of any country in the developed world.

This Government have cut housing subsidies to the deprived areas by 65 per cent., and housing investment programme allocations for the deprived areas by 77 per cent.—far above the national average cut of 60 per cent., which is deplorable enough.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only solution the Government have for rented accommodation is to bring in a form of market rents and to decontrol more or less along the same lines as the notorious 1957 Rent Act? Is he aware that the House Builders Federation—no friend by any means of the Labour party—has produced figures to show that in the south-east market rents in the private sector would be £90 against the £80 which on the whole owner-occupiers would be paying in mortgage repayments? Does that not demonstrate that the people about whom my right hon. Friend is speaking, who are in desperate need of rented accommodation and who cannot afford a mortgage, will certainly be unable to afford market rents in any deregulated private sector?

I shudder to think what will happen when the private landlords are let loose on rented accommodation. Knowing that in my own constituency people living in private rented accommodation in one room, sharing a bathroom with seven others, are paying £50 a week, I can only imagine what it will be like once the Secretary of State for the Environment gets his way with the free market.

The Government's own index of deprivation—and that includes housing deprivation—shows shocking numbers of people affected by multiple deprivation. That kind of deprivation is at its most grinding, according to the Department of the Environment's own figures, in places such as Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Manchester, Newham and Southwark. No wonder that these most deprived areas are the ones that have suffered most fearfully from the Government's cuts in the rate support grant, with a cumulative loss of £1,400 million for the partnership and programme authorities in England and their equivalents in Scotland. That is Thatcher's Britain in 1987.

What do the Government intend to do about it? The Gracious Speech contains a curious medley of measures. It tells us that there is to be a Bill to give greater flexibility in licensing hours. The Home Secretary reminded us that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to tighten up immigration control. The Government intend to withhold benefit from school leavers under the age of 18 who refuse a place on the youth training scheme.

Changing the licensing laws sounds innocuous, but the Government have simply not thought through the problems that are involved in increasing the availability of alcohol, when all who are knowledgeable about such matters—the Royal College of Psychiatrists has made a recent statement about them—point to the alarming excessive use of alcohol in much violent crime, including wife battering, rape, child abuse and murder. Will the Government change the licensing laws without thinking through what the change will mean in terms of crime?

Tightening up the immigration laws, to which the Home Secretary referred, will have little effect on the level of immigration into this country, but it will cause great hardship to the lives of the small number of people who are already resident here. An immigration Bill will make the ethnic minorities feel even more oppressed and discriminated against than they are already.

Last week we had the disturbances in Chapeltown in Leeds. I know that area well, because I lived there for 20 years from early childhood. I saw successive waves of immigrants—Jews, Poles and Afro-Caribbeans—move in. My home was in the street next to that in which last week's disturbances took place.

I condemn riots and unlawful disturbances wherever they take place, but the Government must be aware of the problems in deprived inner-city areas such as Chapeltown, where there is 50 per cent. unemployment among young blacks. Some 93 per cent. of 16-year-olds in the Asian community in Bradford are unable to find work. That statistic was quoted the other day by Mr. Lawler, who lost his seat in Bradford as a result of it. I warn the Government that the more they exclude young people from opportunities within the community, the more such young people will feel excluded from it. I warn the Government that more such young people, whether they be white, Asian or Afro-Caribbean, will feel that they owe no obligation to a society that accepts no obligation to them.

That is why the Government's decision to withdraw benefit from young people who refuse a YTS place is not only vicious, but dangerous. If up to 100,000 young people are deprived of income, the Government must not be surprised if some of them turn to crime. Already crime in the deprived areas is far worse than in the country as a whole. Already the pressure on the police is such that crime clear-up rates in the deprived areas are even worse than the low clear-up rates in the country as a whole.

Yet the Government are introducing policies that will make crime worse. Ten years ago the Prime Minister, when she was Leader of the Opposition, said:

"I hope to be Prime Minister one day and I don't want there to be one street in Britain I cannot go down."

She also said:

"I don't intend sitting on the sidelines while crime in our cities goes the way of New York."

There is now more crime in London than there is in New York, and the Prime Minister has presided over that. No doubt that is why in her speech last Thursday she did not once dare to mention crime or law and order. The Prime Minister dare not be reminded of her empty and broken promises, but I tell the right hon. Lady that if she goes on her outings to the inner cities she will hear a great deal about crime and the fear of it. She will hear a great deal about other profound problems as well.

In the deprived areas of Britain, babies have less chance of surviving to infancy. If they do survive, they have a higher chance of contracting congenital diseases. They have less chance of being brought up in a sound and secure home. They have less chance of getting an apprenticeship, less chance of further education, and less chance of a university education. They have less chance of any job, less chance of a well-paid job, less chance of keeping their job, and more chance of being made redundant if they get a job. They run greater risks of industrial injury and disease and of dying of such injuries and diseases. Their chances of hospital treatment are reduced by long waiting lists. They are more likely to be victims of crimes, and they have less chance of getting criminal injuries compensation. They often retire on pittance pensions and are sometimes unable to afford winter fuel. They tend to die earlier than their fellow Britons, and when they die their survivors may have difficulty in affording them a dignified funeral because of the Government's abolition of death grant. From cradle to grave, millions are victims of Thatcherism.

In this debate last Thursday the Prime Minister claimed :

"People … have a higher standard of living than they have ever had before",

as a result of

"economic strength … that we have never had before."—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 53.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at this stage.

A sufficient number of people believed the Prime Minister on 11 June to re-elect her to office, but the Prime Minister should never forget that 10 million people disbelieved her and voted for the Labour party. The Prime Minister should always remember that it is her duty to be Prime Minister of those 10 million people as well as of her own 13 million supporters.

For eight years the Prime Minister has behaved, not as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as the Prime Minister of the Conservative voters. She excludes from her consideration all the millions who disagree with her. That is why, whether the Prime Minister realises it or not, she is detested by non-Conservatives as few British Prime Ministers have ever been detested.

In her remaining period of office the test for the Prime Minister will be whether she can break out of her own prejudices to become the Prime Minister of the whole country. If she can, all of us will welcome that change. If she refuses to do so, the consequence will be an alienation and a division that could split the kingdom.

As a result of the right hon. Lady's electoral victory earlier this month, the future of the country rests to a great extent in her hands—to a great extent, but not exclusively. In this newly elected Parliament the Labour party will fight in every way that it can for a proper, decent and dignified place for all our people in a truly United Kingdom.