asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what was discussed.

I met the Commissioner yesterday, when we discussed his strategy for next year.

Did the Home Secretary take the opportunity to commend the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his commitment to include the issue of domestic violence—assault against women in their own homes—as one of the principal force goals for 1987? However, at the same time, did he take the opportunity to express his disappointment at the apparent lack of urgency that the Metropolitan police seem to have in following up the recommendations of their own working party on this issue, particularly the pilot project to establish police prosecutions as a third party in an area such as Hounslow? If not, will he do so and stress the urgency and importance of this issue?

We discussed this issue. I welcome what the Commissioner has done to insert this in his strategy. It is a difficult matter for the police, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise. That is why, sometimes in the past, police forces have been hesitant about getting involved in it. We all understand the need for the police to be sensitive and active in dealing with this matter. When we discuss the strategy, and when the hon. Gentleman as a London Member discusses it, he can press home his points.

Does my right hon. Friend support the Commissioner in his 1987 theme of safety and the citizen? In thinking about that theme, does he congratulate the Commissioner on his determination to reduce racial attacks in London, to improve the prevention and detection of burglary, particularly through the neighbourhood watch schemes, and to concentrate on reducing the number of robberies in certain parts of London, where the problem is of great concern to the citizen?

I agree with my hon. Friend on all those points. I hope that the Metropolitan police will be able successfully to recruit up to the increased establishments that I have given them so that they can meet those tasks. My hon. Friend will have noticed the increased emphasis that the Metropolitan police are giving to dealing with the problem of racial attacks, as I saw for myself in Tower Hamlets last week.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the great majority of Londoners want to see the police dealing more effectively with street crime, with the theft of vehicles, with house burglary, with enforcing bus lanes—

Stealing silver.

The hon. Gentleman should watch what he is saying. He has a very loose tongue and a wild and silly mind.

I am not sure about bus lanes, but the hon. Gentleman's point about the futility of tying down so many police at Wapping is right, as I saw for myself last week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will use their influence to ensure that, whatever course this dispute between Mr. Murdoch and his employees takes, it does not continue to force the deployment of so many hundreds of policemen at Wapping.

Will my right hon. Friend during those discussions with the Commissioner talk also about the growing menace of violence in shops?

Yes. That is important. It is one of the themes of our standing conference on crime prevention and one on which I keep in close touch with Baroness Phillips and all those concerned.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the annual crime rate in London is now 200,000 above the 1978 rate when Labour was in office, that that represents an increase of 35 per cent., and that, on average, two London families in five will have among their numbers a victim of crime during the present year? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, therefore, that Londoners are contemptuous of the Government's claims that they are doing something about law and order in the capital?

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends make no mileage with that kind of point, and I shall tell them why. They try occasionally to clamber aboard our policies—for example, on crime prevention and victim support—but, on the whole, people in London associate them with those boroughs in London the Labour leaders of which concentrate on undermining and abusing the police.

Will my right hon. Friend consider with the Commissioner the policing of Waltham Abbey, where regular fights between youthful gangs now aflict that formerly peaceful town? Is it not the case that there are no more police on the streets now than there were in the 1920s? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the strength and the establishment of the Metropolitan police?

I am not satisfied with the Metropolitan police strength, because they are 600 below the establishment which I have authorised. One of their main tasks in the coming year is to recruit and keep the officers necessary to reach the increased establishment which I have set. They are going all out to do that. The more the Metropolitan police can do that, the more police officers there will be, particularly in the outer London boroughs, which I readily recognise suffer from the inevitable, and right, concentration which the Commissioner has decided to deal with some other problems in the more acute areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his Department's earlier statements regarding the formula used for the Griess test carried out by Dr. Frank Skuse in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of 20 November, Official Report, column 288, what information he has regarding evidence dating from 1975 that the strength of the caustic soda solution used by Dr. Frank Skuse to test the men subsequently convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings for nitro-glycerine was 1 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure is used by his Department's forensic scientists to record details of tests carried out in criminal cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings (a) he, and (b) his officials have had with Dr. Frank Skuse since his retirement, to discuss Dr. Skuse's role in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions the director of his Department's laboratory at Chorley has had on the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

As part of our review of this case we arranged for a reappraisal of the Griess test to be undertaken by the Aldermaston forensic science laboratory. It was not clear from the papers what strength of caustic soda solution Dr. Skuse used and whether or not he used ethanol. I understand that the practice is for observations, tests, results and conclusions to be recorded, but that there was no reference to these two points in the notes which Dr. Skuse made in this case.

Will the Minister confirm that the retirement of Dr. Skuse at the age of 50 was far from voluntary and that he was sacked on the grounds of "limited effectiveness"? Is not this matter being hushed up to avoid a scandal?

No. I utterly reject any suggestion that this matter has been hushed up. Full disclosures have been made of such facts as we are able to make prior to my right hon. Friend reaching his decision. In relation to the position of Dr. Skuse, it is right—and we have always made this clear—that he was retired on grounds of limited efficiency. However, it must be said that that was limited efficiency at the time that he was retired, not limited efficiency in 1975.

Will the Minister confirm that in May 1985, his office believed that the records at Chorley were accurate, but in September 1986, in a letter to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the Minister said that there was some doubt about the accuracy of those records? Does he believe that that warrants an inquiry into what is happening in the Chorley laboratory? Does he think that someone in the laboratory is being "economical with the truth" about the evidence of those tests?

The full investigations that have been made at the laboratory have certainly revealed matters that are a cause for concern about the record keeping in this case. The adequacy of those records and the consistency or otherwise of some of the matters set out therein, is a prime point that my right hon. Friend is considering in the context of further action to be taken in this case. Many changes have taken place since 1975 in the forensic science service in the manner in which these tests are carried out and recorded. We are satisfied with the efficiency of the forensic science service in those respects at present.

While we are pleased that the Minister will review the procedures at Chorley—it is shocking that written records were not kept in such a crucial case—does he accept that the major concern is the six men involved, who received 21 life sentences for an offence which they probably did not commit? Will the Minister give us an assurance today that if there is any doubt he will take the percentage that is most beneficial to those men, particularly given that Dr. Black's records from the time—the one man who had a record—show that it was a 1 per cent. solution?

Of course, I give the hon. Lady the assurance that these matters are being considered seriously. Anything that tends to suggest that there is new evidence or new considerations of substance that were not before the court in 1975, and which cast doubt on the safety of the conviction, would provide a basis for my right hon. Friend to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal. My right hon. Friend has a difficult decision to make. Information is still coming in and, indeed, earlier this week we received a full statement of an interview that the police had with Mr. Clarke. My right hon. Friend will consider the papers carefully and personally over the next few weeks and he intends and hopes to announce his conclusions early in the new year.

Will the Minister confirm that the trial judge placed great emphasis and importance on the forensic evidence and the confessions? Will he further confirm that the forensic evidence and confessions have been found to be fundamentally flawed? In the name of humanity and justice, as those men now face their 12th Christmas and new year in prison, will he take this opportunity to say that the Government have decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal so that all the matters can be looked at afresh?

The hon. Gentleman has plainly reached his own conclusions about the matter. It is not for me to join him in a rush to judgment on these issues. It is for us to determine, as I have already said, whether there is new evidence or considerations that entitle others, whose task it is within the criminal justice system, to consider whether matters have proceeded properly and to re-examine those matters. That is what we are doing. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, as I told other hon. Members last month, that is not the least bit reassuring that some hon. Members seem to believe that we in this House, and not the court, should reach conclusions about guilt or innocence. It is a matter for the courts.

The Government's representatives are not much good when they come under cross-examination of one kind or another, are they? Is it not a fact that Dr. Frank Skuse, who represented the Government, was about as convincing as Sir Robert Armstrong was in Australia? Does the Minister recall another forensic scientist, Dr. Clift, whose name was bandied about this building for about three years, until eventually a Tory Minister had to recognise that the campaign against Dr. Clift's forensic evidence would result in some people being released from gaol? Why does the Minister not acknowledge that fact now instead of engaging in a cover-up?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman throws allegations around. I regret that he feels it necessary to turn every issue into a partisan one. In so far as Dr. Skuse was representing any Government when he gave evidence at the trial, it was a Labour Government.

Why is it that since the resignation of Dr. Skuse the Home Office has not questioned him directly on his methodology? He says that he wants to make available all the information that he has, that the case notes are full, that as recently as January they were in the possession of Chorley and that they would show the methods and detail he used in the application on that night in November 1974.

Repeated attempts have been made to get full explanations from Dr. Skuse, but they have not peen successful. I can give my hon. Friend chapter and verse about that.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be invidious for all the staff who work at the forensic laboratory at Chorley, where some of my constituents are employed, to be tarred with the brush, as the Opposition seem to be doing, that somehow everything is wrong at Chorley and the staff do not do a remarkably good job on behalf of those who need their advice?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The willingness of some Opposition Members to traduce a whole group of people because of the alleged inadequacies of one is hardly reassuring for their reputation on maintaining law and order.

Given the Minister's admission about the lack of co-operation, why has he not taken steps to have the notebooks and case records impounded and made available to the lawyers representing those who are in gaol? How is it possible for a scientist to be almost certain about the formula that he used?

The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The notebooks and other articles are available and are forming part of the re-examination that is taking place.

Will the Minister make the papers available now?

The hon. Gentleman should listen to my answer instead of asking further questions from a sedentary position. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decides to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal, any material relevant to the appeal and its proper prosecution will be made available. That is the situation and that is how it has always been.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals he has to reduce the incidence of crime.

The latest figure for police strengths in England and Wales is a record of 121,841. Spending on the police in real terms has increased by about 50 per cent. since 1978–79. Further expansion is under way. Crime is best reduced by involving all those who can help in its prevention. At the standing conference on crime prevention last month we gave new impetus to our plans, which include, strengthening crime prevention as an element within the policies of all Government Departments, stimulating further practical local activities, such as the five local projects already in place, encouraging the private sector to join more fully in crime prevention, and developing measures to prevent crime among children and young people.

Is the Home Secretary aware that businesses and householders in my constituency are becoming increasingly insecure because of the ever-growing incidence of theft and robbery? Because of the lack of Government action my constituents are becoming increasingly worried and frightened. If the Home Secretary does not understand that, I invite him to come to my constituency and meet representatives of the many groups who have been to see me over the past few weeks. My constituents think that the Government do not care.

Obviously, there is anxiety about the growing crime figures, as there has been for many years. As people understand the depth and width of our policies and the greatly increased resources that we are providing, whether for crime prevention, victim support, the police or the criminal justice system, they will see that our record compares admirably with anything that has gone before.

During the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider the reports about the case of Michael Hicks, an official of SOGAT '82, who was convicted at Southwark Crown court last week of an offence of actual bodily harm at the Wapping printing plant? Will my right hon. Friend also note that Mr. Hicks was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment? Yesterday, however, the national executive of the Labour party voted, unanimously, to call for his release. Will my right hon. Friend give us an undertaking that, during the course of his administration, those who commit offences of violence, whether for political or other reasons, will be treated in exactly the same way?

I was amazed to see the report about the Labour party that my hon. Friend mentions, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will throw some light on it. Is it that the Labour party has evidence that suggests that this conviction of Mr. Hicks was unsafe, or is it that it believes that, as an office bearer in a trade union, he is entitled to assault police officers and get away with it?

With regard to the incidence of crime, is the Home Secretary aware—

Crime? The hon. Gentleman does not condemn it.

Yes, crime which Conservative Members do not care about.

Every opinion poll on this matter that I have seen gives the public verdict that our policies on this matter are, by a long stretch, more credible than those of the Labour party. This afternoon, we can understand why the right hon. Gentleman produces his familiar litany and why, as a spokesman of a party that claims to be interested in law and order, he has completely failed to comment on or repudiate the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). Until he does so, he loses all credibility.

Will my right hon. Friend not allow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to get away from the point about the NEC's condemnation of a judge and jury when they found guilty a man who had violently assaulted a member of the Metropolitan police? Will my right hon. Friend say how it helps in the fight against crime, which ought to concern all parties, when the Leader of the Opposition lends his name to an attack on a court of law because it has found guilty a man who violently attacked a police officer of the Metropolitan police?

It is not a matter of letting the right hon. Gentleman to get away from the point; he has not got on to it yet, though it is absolutely relevant to his pretensions and to his questions on this matter. As my hon. Friend says, the pursuit and prevention of crime must be a matter for the whole community and all political parties. The Labour party cannot be allowed to pick and choose between offences it condemns and those from which it thinks its friends should be exempt.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for stimulating the further development of neighbourhood watch schemes.

There are already some 17,500 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales. This clearly demonstrates the public's willingness to be involved in positive crime prevention activity. The first national neighbourhood watch conference took place on 8 December, which was also the day on which we launched a new quarterly magazine Good Neighbour. Together, these will help to disseminate ideas, good practice and projects to encourage further development of neighbourhood watch.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for the support that his Department is giving to home watch schemes in Norfolk, especially in my constituency, where good progress is being made. This must be one of the good, practical ways in which to deal with crime, especially where elderly people who feel under threat are concerned. Can my hon. Friend find ways in which to increase further liaison between police officers and the community and to publicise these matters further, especially in East Anglia, through the Magpies programme?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. During the past six months, 10 new schemes became operational in his area and five more are setting up. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about communication. That is why we held the standing conference and why we have the new magazine.

Although I welcome neighbourhood watch schemes, does the Minister recognise that they are no substitute whatever for having enough policemen on the beat, and that people in my constituency are afraid to go out at night because of what can happen to them on the street and because they do not want to leave their homes empty? When will the Minister provide enough policemen on the beat and stop refusing the Leicestershire police force the policemen it requires and has asked for so that it can be properly staffed?

That is a singularly unattractive question from a member of the Labour party.

It is just that the Minister does not like it.

Since 1979, manpower available to the police service has increased by about 15,000. Since 1979, we have spent more than 38 per cent. more in real terms on the police. I remind the House that when the Labour party was in power the police were grossly underpaid and left the force in droves.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in the approved establishment of the Thames Valley police is extremely welcome as it provides an opportunity for the further development of community watch schemes and other measures to combat crime? Is my hon. Friend further aware that the antics at Greenham Common, supported by the Labour party to the hilt, are a serious drain on the manpower available to the force and divert its efforts away from the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals?

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I am grateful to him and other Conservative colleagues for the way in which they have put the arguments in support of the Thames Valley application for an increase in establishment, which we have been able to meet. My hon. Friend has suggested that the demands of Greenham Common undermine the capacity of the Thames Valley police to respond. Who supports the people who are demonstrating at Greenham Common? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. The Labour party supports Greenham Common demonstrators.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to co-operate with me in setting up a neighbourhood watch scheme in the House to find out how many times the Secretary of State for the Environment has broken the law. What will he do, that is effective, about crime prevention, over and above the cheap option of neighbourhood watch? We all know that it is the cuts in caretaker provision and other forms of crime prevention that have pushed the crime rate up and that it is the Government who have done that with the full co-operation of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has a lot to answer for, besides his breaches of the law.

I shall be very pleased to set up a neighbourhood watch scheme in the House, because we would then begin to identify which Labour Members supported the demonstrations at Grunwick, which Labour Members stand on the Wapping picket lines and which Labour Members persistently encourage those who riot and abuse the police. We should certainly have a neighbourhood watch scheme, and we know who will be found out.

Major Hugh Thornburn of Alderley Edge in my constituency has been in the forefront of the development of neighbourhood watch schemes. Does my hon. Friend, who clearly supports neighbourhood watch schemes, accept that an additional modest resource is necessary if the co-operation of the police with the development of neighbourhood watch is to exploit the maximum co-operation of ordinary lay men and women in society in combating crime?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, but I re-emphasise to the House that, since 1979, this Government have increased spending on the police service by more than 38 per cent. in real terms. It is for chief constables to determine how they allocate their expenditure within their budgets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has ever attempted to estimate the total economic cost of crime; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. We know the cost of the criminal justice system and the value of goods stolen in the course of certain types of crimes, but an estimate of the total costs of crime could not readily be made.

Does the Minister agree that many authorities, and some in the Home Office, subscribe to the view that crime costs about £16 billion to £17 billion a year? That being the case, does the Minister agree that the majority of preventable crime takes place during the hours of darkness? If so, will he agree to the funding of a limited number of experimental control schemes using artificial lighting for the purpose of demonstrating that lighting engineers have part of the remedy for preventable crime during the hours of darkness?

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. We are considering ways of tackling crime by trying to prevent it. He knows that a range of initiatives are going forward in different parts of the country, drawing on money under the urban programme, and on manpower from the MSC, which seek to engage many different groups. I shall certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously.

May I invite the Minister to think again about this issue, because, clearly, if some sort of sensible estimate could be made, it would bring home to all the importance of this matter? Will the Minister think about the cost of fear? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) mentioned, the fear that keeps people locked in their homes influences jobs and revenue-generating activities. Will the Minister think again about that?

If I may say so again, the points that the hon. Gentleman has made are important and do not need to be used as a prop to argue in favour of getting some sort of inevitable guesstimate. The points made about the fear of crime are particularly significant because, unquestionably, as the British crime survey discovered, the fear of crime is an evil in itself and needs to be tackled. As has been said, many people allow themselves to be locked up in their homes when there is no good reason for that. Part of the reason why we are returning so many police officers to the beat is to try to stimulate confidence in neighbourhoods where that is entirely appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about his decision not to propose changes in the qualifications provided for by the Justices Clerks (Qualifications of Assistants) Rules 1979.

Representations have been made orally on behalf of the Justices' Clerks Society. No others have been received.

Why has the Minister set his face against the requirement that all court clerks in the magistrates' courts should have professional qualifications? In view of the increasing complexity of the law, the volume of work in the magistrates' courts and the extension of legal aid, is not the quality of advice offered of very high importance? Is the Minister aware that the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Magistrates Association support this reform? Why is he against it?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The quality of advice tendered to justices in magistrates' courts is important. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman would, in all fairness, wish to admit, a number of those who may not be qualified as barristers or solicitors but who hold diplomas in magisterial law have been offering extremely good advice to magistrates' courts up and down the country for many years. Indeed, the magistrates' court system in this country runs with more than two thirds of the clerks so qualified. Only one third are legally qualified. We do not believe that the tremendous efforts and the large resources that would be needed to move to a fully professional justices clerks' profession could be justified at this time against so many competing priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from voluntary groups concerning problems encountered following the abolition of the metropolitan local authorities.

None, but we are keeping in touch with developments as they may affect the funding of voluntary groups in the areas concerned.

Does the Minister realise that there is increasing concern among voluntary bodies in the six former metropolitan counties and in London, which are partly funded by the Department, and which are at risk of having their buildings transferred over their heads in a way that will substantially increase their rents, rates and other running costs? At the end of the day, there is no net advantage to the Exchequer. Will the Minister hold discussions with the relevant residuary bodies in order to protect worthwhile voluntary organisations from the unnecessary and unjustified increases that are believed to be in the pipeline?

The hon. Gentleman has made a cogent case, as I would expect of him, and I shall look carefully at what he has said.

Given the furore when the metropolitan counties were abolished, what conclusion does my hon. Friend draw from the fact that he has received no representations whatever from voluntary bodies expressing concern about what has happened since?

I can only speak from a Greater London perspective, but the entirely spurious ratepayer-funded GLC campaign, which tried to instil in Londoners the belief that civilised life in London would come to an end with the GLC's demise, has been shown to have been totally and utterly without merit.

Is the Minister aware that there is abundant evidence that many voluntary organisations will be badly hit unless he takes action very quickly?

Action is being taken. The Government have made substantial sums of money available in order to allow transitional support for such bodies, but it was always anticipated that some voluntary bodies that were funded by organisations such as the GLC on an entirely reckless basis, right at the end of their mandate, and in a way calculated to try to embarrass successor authorities, would not continue to be so funded. That was inevitable and is not necessarily at all undesirable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to amend the law so as to provide for a statutory definition of subversion.

No, Sir.

If the Home Secretary does not intend to amend the law, will he at least confirm that subversion means unlawful activity that is directed at the overthrow of a parliamentary Government and does not mean views that are unacceptable to a particular Government?

The definition was given for the first time by the Minister of State in the previous Labour Government, Lord Harris, on 26 February 1975. That definition of subversion is

"activities … which threaten the safety or wellbeing of the State, and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1975; Vol. 357, c. 947.]

Does subversion include the undermining of the Crown's case in a court overseas?

I think that I had better rely on the text that I have read out, which has held since 1975.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet had a chance to read Mr. Hugo Young's comments in TheGuardian today, suggesting that people in the Conservative party, including the Prime Minister and just about every member of the Cabinet, believe that members of the Labour party are subversive—[Interruption.]—agents for the Soviet Union and traitors? Why do Conservative Members not cheer, as that is exactly what they think? Is it not about time that they recognised what every organisation in Europe recognises, which is that the Socialist movement in Britain is rooted in the British people and is less subversive than are Conservative Members, because they want to sell our country and our people to the United States of America?

I have read the article, and I thought it was a wild article by a usually reasonable journalist. I am not surprised that it has inflamed the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to seek to ban or further restrict the sale of dangerous weapons.

The Firearms Act 1968 already lays down strict controls on the possession and use of firearms and we have no plans at present to amend it. With regard to other weapons, we announced on 3 December that we intend to issue guidelines to traders urging that crossbows should not be sold to persons under 17. We are in favour of a statutory prohibition of this kind and the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has introduced will seek to do this. We keep the whole subject under active review.

Is it not obscene that some unscrupulous traders sell to children, as Christmas presents, dangerous, illegal weapons such as flick knives, spiked gloves and Chinese death stars? Is it not about time that the Government took firm action to outlaw such a barbaric practice, which is exploiting children and encouraging violence in the streets?

I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting the Bill on crossbows, and I hope that he will be applauding the guidance that the Government have given about the sale of martial arts equipment and crossbows to young people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 December.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Henry Simon Ltd. of Stockport on winning a contract for a new flour mill in China, worth £1·8 million? Is it not distressing that city slickers have now set up a company, Valuedale, to asset-strip the Simon group? Is she not ashamed of the fact that she has created the greed society, and will she apologise to the British people?

I am always willing to congratulate firms which have gained export contracts and wish them well. If the hon. Gentleman has any comment about any particular firm, he must make it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Could my right hon. Friend find a moment today to reflect on the problem of public finance and Opposition parties, and in particular on the fact that the Liberal party, in criticising the way that hon. Members have voted in certain Divisions, appears unable to discover the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts) is a member of the Government, so it would be normal for him to vote with the Government?

My hon. Friend made his point well, and grafted it on to a suitable question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members will welcome the decision by the Secretary of State for Defence to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, thus giving the disabled service men of today and tomorrow the right to sue for adequate compensation? Is she further aware that there can be no justification for the Secretary of State's mean-minded attempts to deny the same righs to the disabled service men who served in the atom tests of yesterday? Will the Prime Minister please intervene?

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. With regard to the latter part, it is either the subject of a case or under consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend take a little time this afternoon to invite the Leader of the Opposition to her room for a bit of Christmas cheer? Will she then, on Privy Council terms, explain to him that there is no point in spending money on an early warning system unless we are prepared for the warning?

Once again, my hon. Friend makes his own point very effectively in his question.

Despite the humour in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked a question, will the Prime Minister read carefully the article by Hugo Young that appeared today in The Guardian? He states that a former Tory Cabinet Minister told him that he was provided with documents that contained security information about prominent members of the Labour party and that he was told by the same Cabinet Minister that he hoped that "Denis Healey"—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, whom I first met on the beaches at Anzio—[Interruption.] That is not a laughing matter. He said he was told that the Minister hoped my right hon. Friend would be found dead on the pavement in the morning, killed by an unauthorised group. Fantastic as it sounds, because of what we have learnt about the man Wright, whom I dislike as much as the Prime Minister—and I hope that he does badly in Australia—when the case is over, Wright ought to be brought to account, with others, so that we can find out whether there is anything in this article, or whether it is pure moonshine. Is it pure moonshine?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for what is written in press articles. He knows full well that I can make no comment with regard to the conduct of the Wright case.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the Post Office on the efficient manner in which, at the busiest time of the year, it handled and delivered 5 million letters of acceptance to British Gas shareholders? Will she also take the opportunity to remind those 5 million shareholders and their relatives of what would happen to their shareholdings if Labour came to power?

Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Post Office on the efficiency with which it dealt with those 5 million letters. I remind the shareholders, or potential shareholders, that if the Labour party came to power they would never have the opportunity they have now and that they might be deprived of their right to equity shareholding.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 December.

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

I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that in my constituency and in the constituency of every hon. Member there are memorials to those who have given their lives for this country. I am also sure the right hon. Lady agrees that it is appropriate that at this time we should remember them and their families. Does the right hon. Lady also agree that patriotism and loyalty do not belong to any particular group or class or to any particular party?

As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has said nothing with which I disagree.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the CND fanatics on the Opposition Benches, in particular to the Leader of the Opposition, that in the nuclear age there is no such thing as a secure, non-nuclear defence? Is it not clear that, although they may try to conceal the fact from the British electorate, their only response, in the event of a nuclear threat or nuclear attack, would be the capitulation of this island to the gaolers of the nations of eastern Europe and to the butchers of the Afghans?

Yes, I believe that an effective defence needs an effective nuclear deterrent. Without it we could not fight the potential aggressor who had a nuclear deterrent. I note what my hon. Friend said about Afghanistan, which has been occupied for just about seven years—for longer than the whole of the last war.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 December.

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

Has the Prime Minister read the latest criminal statistics, which show that, despite the determined efforts of the police to clear up crime, the number of crimes not being cleared up is increasing at a greater rate than before? Has she noticed that the offence of robbery and serious offences of violence against the person increased last year by more than 10 per cent? Because the Criminal Justice Bill will do nothing to reverse these alarming trends, what proposals has the Prime Minister in mind to halt this inexorable rise in crime?

Unfortunately, crime has been rising steadily for a number of years. The hon. Gentleman must be pleased that the Government have put more and more into the police service in personnel and in equipment. He will also be pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a vigorous campaign for crime prevention. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we cannot tackle and beat crime without the wholehearted support, not only of hon. Members, but of everybody in society.

In the light of the recent epic and historic reform of the common agricultural policy, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will now be no need for any additional payments to the EEC?

I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has been quite outstanding in his skilful piloting of the latest Agriculture Council and the Fisheries Council. I hope that what my hon. Friend says is true. I have not looked at all the details of the financial arrangements, but they are clearly designed substantially to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy.

Does the Prime Minister recall that at the time of her first Christmas in office 3½ million adults were on supplementary benefit and 1 million children were in families dependent on supplementary benefit? This Christmas over 5 million adults are in that position and over 2 million children are in families dependent on supplementary benefit. By any measure that is a huge increase in poverty. Is the Prime Minister not absolutely ashamed of her record?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that supplementary benefit is meant to provide for those who are in need. Not only does it do so, but it does so on a more generous scale than under previous Governments. As he is aware, when supplementary benefit rises the number of people in poverty goes up—if that is his definition of poverty.

I wish that the right hon. Lady's reference to the rate of supplementary benefit was true, but unfortunately it is not. There are now more people in deeper poverty in Britain, and the rate of benefit has not kept pace with the cost of living for poor people. As a mother, what would the Prime Minister say to the mother of two who asked in the "Christmas on the Breadline" report:

"How can you explain to a child who thinks that mum and dad can work miracles, that he cannot have something because there aren't enough pennies, or that Father Christmas has run out of toys?"

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about supplementary benefit. Supplementary benefit has gone up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Scrooge".]

Order.

Supplementary benefit is up by 6 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation and supplementary benefit scale rates for children under five years old have gone up by 29 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation. May I also remind—[Interruption.]

Order.

May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that 10 years ago this Christmas under Labour the old-age pensioners did not have a Christmas bonus?

The Prime Minister has run away from giving advice to that poor family, but she has misled the House in her references. The facts are that the retail prices index has risen by 62·9 per cent., the cost of living for pensioners has risen five percentage points—3 per cent. in real terms—more than that, and for poor families, nine percentage points—5 per cent. in real terms—more than that. Will the right hon. Lady apologise not only to the poor but to the House as well?

No, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary benefit is up about 6 per cent. in real terms at the July uprating and the rates for children under five and aged 11 to 12 increased by about 29 per cent. in real terms. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, we have done infinitely better than his Government in looking after those on supplementary benefit and infinitely better in letting all old-age pensioners have a Christmas bonus.