asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact he expects the tape recordings of police interviews with suspects to have on the efficiency of the police; and whether he will make a statement.

Experience of two years of field trials suggests that tape recording will offer a number of benefits to the police. These include savings in police time through a reduction in the average length of interviews with suspects and a reduction in the number of occasions on which police evidence is called into question in the courts. It was also noted that during the field trials the number of confessions obtained was larger for taped cases than for untaped cases. The intention is now to introduce tape recording nationwide, with complete national coverage by 1991.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that resources will be made available to the police to provide the necessary interview rooms and to meet the requirements of extra transcribing staff, and so on? Will he also confirm that the number of pleas of guilty has increased in the areas in which the project has been monitored?

A total budget of £7 million has been allocated in grant-aid, to be spread over five years between 1986 and 1991. The present evidence— it relates to justices' courts—is that pleas of guilty have increased by 2 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all practitioners at the criminal Bar would congratulate the Government on taking this important step for the improvement of justice? It will greatly assist justice in two ways. First, it will speed criminal trials and make sure that waiting lists are shorter. Secondly, it will substantially improve the morale of the police, who will no longer be subjected to cross-examination on the allegation that they are dishonest, when they are not.

My hon. and learned Friend is right in all that he said. We have noticed that there is a substantial reduction in the length of trials, due at least in part to the fact that police interview evidence is not challenged as much as it used to be when untaped evidence was available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to take any new initiatives following the publication on 16 March of the recorded crime figures for 1986.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what place crime prevention has in his overall strategy to reduce crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to diminish the crime rate.

The Government plan to intensify their present effort against crime. This includes providing extra resources for the police, prison and probation services, strengthening, where necessary, the powers of the police and the courts, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and supporting a broad range of crime prevention measures. Crime prevention is an essential element in this strategy.

Do not the alarming figures conclusively prove that the Government do not have answers to the law and order problems? Will the Home Secretary enable police forces such as the Northumbria force to recruit up to strength? Will he back community crime prevention schemes, by the greater use of special constables and neighbourhood watch schemes?

The hon. Gentleman may know that there are now 10,600 more police officers in England and Wales than there were in 1979, and more than 5,000 more civilians working with the police. As part of the phased further expansion of the police I am looking at applications from authorities, one by one, and granting them when it is clear that there are jobs to be done that can be done only by uniformed police officers. There is scope for further use of special constables, for example in helping the police and in helping neighbourhood watch schemes to get off the ground. I am encouraging the spread of good practice in that regard.

I thank my right hon. Friend for increasing the number of policemen on the beat in Staffordshire by 25 in the past few weeks. Does he agree that 95 out of 100 crimes are committed against property rather than against the person? Does he further agree that it is the duty of every individual citizen to endeavour to protect his or her property in the best way that he or she can? What further initiatives does my right hon. Friend plan to take to ensure that that is done?

My hon. Friend is right. It is not surprising that car thefts are about the fastest growing form of offence, when one in five of us leaves his car unlocked. Of course people need help, and that is why for three years we have been building up a wide range of crime prevention measures, including, for example, funding under the community programmes to the tune of about £35 million. Some 8,000 unemployed people go round helping people like those that my hon. Friend has in mind to make their houses, flats and shops more secure.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, for example, in county Durham last year, burglaries rose by over 10 per cent. and that the annual recorded crime over the last six years has risen by 10,000, or over 30 per cent.? Is he also aware that local authorities are hard pressed because of the cuts in block grant, particularly in areas like county Durham? Does he not think that we would be better able to deal with crime and law and order problems if we devoted more resources to law and order and to dealing with the problems of the people at the sharp end, namely, the police and the victims, rather than have the temporary tax cuts of the Budget?

The resources devoted to law and order have increased at a phenomenal rate, starting, admittedly, from the lamentable position that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the police. Next year we will spend 50 per cent. more in real terms on the police, including getting more policemen out at the sharp end of policing than we had in 1979. Certainly we need to spend more, and will spend more, on crime prevention. The whole thrust of my answers today and on previous occasions is that if we are serious about reducing the bulk of recorded crime, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said is crime against property, crime prevention is probably the best way to do it.

When my right hon. Friend tries to identify the cause of the increase in recorded crime, especially crime concerning property, will he bear in mind the dreadful effect of the use of drugs that is reflected in the crime figures? Does he agree that, for example, in America 60 per cent. of all crimes against property are attributable to the taking and misuse of hard drugs?

I am quite clear that more and more crimes, including a lot of minor crime, such as petty pilfering, is inspired by the need to finance drug taking. Therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend says, there is a clear link between what we are doing on crime prevention and what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and his colleagues are doing in our campaign against drug abuse.

Does the Home Secretary think that the most immediate and urgent contribution that he could make to crime prevention would be to undertake to make representations to the chairman of the IBA about the reported plans of Mr. Jeremy Isaacs for late-night viewing on Channel 4 and an increased output of sex and violence? Can the Home Secretary think of anything that is more likely to assure the continued degradation of our society?

If the hon. Gentleman feels that that is important—and he may well be right—he will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote for the Second Reading of the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), which would remove the broadcasting exemption which at the moment puts broadcasters in a different and privileged position in this regard from those who publish books or magazines.

In so far as my right hon. Friend is looking for new initiatives, is he attracted by the idea of political control of the police as set out in, "These are Liberal Policies 1986"? If it is such a good idea, can my right hon. Friend suggest why the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not mention it?

The Liberals are worried about this, as they are worried about many of their policies. I have been in some rather opaque correspondence with Mrs. Shirley Williams on this subject and she seems to be rowing back, if that is the correct phrase, rather fast from the kind of harebrained schemes that the Liberal party espouses. It is only fair to say that last year's proposals by the Liberals are but a pale shadow of folly compared to the official Labour proposals of this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any correspondence between him and Mrs. Shirley Williams is the bland leading the bland? [Interruption.]

Order. That was not bad.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the right hon. Gentleman is doing, although not so far in this House, is setting out to the press his party's plans to reduce the prison population by 20,000 over the lifetime of a Parliament. He can do that only by writing a burglars' charter. There are 10,100 burglars in prison, of whom 3,000 have convictions for II or more offences. The right hon. Gentleman will not achieve his figures for the prison population unless he prevents the courts from sending burglars to prison.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Harlow last year crimes of burglary decreased by 2·2 per cent. and that crime increased overall by 0·3 per cent.? Is he further aware that so far this year crimes of burglary in Harlow have decreased by 5·5 per cent.? Will he take this opportunity to thank the police force in Harlow for looking after my constituents so well, particularly for having the highest detection rate in Essex?

I shall certainly do that, but my hon. Friend is not alone in that experience. For example, in the borough of Wandsworth, part of which is represented by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), residential burglaries decreased by 600 last year. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that neighbourhood watch schemes in that borough rose from 375 to 558.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has for alleviating overcrowding in Her Majesty's prisons.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to monitor the efficacy of his proposals to reduce overcrowding amongst the prison population; and if he will make a statement.

On 27 March 1987 the total prison population of all types in England and Wales was 49,071. We are taking vigorous steps to add prison places and to make the best use of existing places, where necessary by changing establishments' functions. We are maintaining our building programme, of which we are now beginning to see the first fruits. We continue to encourage the courts to make use of non-custodial sentences in suitable cases.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the redesignation of prisons in Yorkshire and Humberside, which harmed the provision for young offenders, plus the opening of Lindholme prison near Doncaster, have done virtually nothing to alleviate the gross overcrowding at Leeds prison? Surely something more dramatic is required than simply trying to shift the numbers round Yorkshire and Humberside if the appalling conditions at Armley are to be improved?

I agree that Leeds is one of the local prisons that is substantially overcrowded, although it has been considerably relieved by the decision that was made about Hull last year. However, as our prison building programme continues to produce new places, I hope, though this depends to a certain extent on the number of people whom the courts send to prison, that the points of pressure, of which Leeds is certainly one, will steadily be relieved.

If the number of people in prison continues to rise, as it has in recent years, is there not a great danger that the new prison building programme will merely accommodate extra prisoners and do nothing to deal with the overcrowding problem?

That is one reason why we are continuing and maintaining, not only the prison building programme of 20 new prisons, but our plans for refurbishing and modernising 100 existing establishments, many of which are Victorian. Our aim is partly to accommodate the growing number of criminals whom the courts send to prison. However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, part of that aim must be to reduce the overcrowding, which in some, but not all, of our prisons is a disgrace and is the direct responsibility of the insouciant way in which our Labour predecessors including the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), neglected entirely, because there were no votes in it, the proper development of the prison estate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive overcrowding in Leicester prison, which was built to hold 203 inmates and currently holds 415? Will he pay an official visit to see for himself the problems there? Will he confirm that those who are on charges of murder or rape should not be allowed bail, although there may be overcrowding in certain prisons?

My hon. Friend's figures are right. We plan to provide some relief soon by transferring to Glen Parva remand centre Leicester's responsibility for assessing and allocating sentenced prisoners. The opening of Littlehey prison and the conversion of Ashwell prison from an open to a closed prison later this year will provide further relief.

Is the Home Secretary aware that as a direct result of overcrowding in the main prisons in the London area many remand prisoners are kept in cells in magistrates courts and police stations, sometimes for weeks at a time? Some women, for example, are being kept at Highbury Corner magistrates court cells with no access to daylight or fresh air and with inadequate visiting facilities, sometimes for two or three weeks. Is that not a disgrace? Instead of talking, what will the Home Secretary do about it?

Yes, it certainly is a disgrace— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I get irked by the way in which Opposition Meembers wash their hands of all responsibility for this situation when, as my predecessors in those Governments now acknowledge, for years, while the courts were continually sending more people to prison, they did virtually nothing to improve the conditions in the prisons or to increase the number of prison places.

Does the Home Secretary accept that in the past eight years the past two Education, Science and Arts Select Committees have studied education in prisons and have constantly uncovered the facts that gross overcrowding in prisons causes disruption and that there is insufficient money for the education of prisoners? We are constantly told that the building programme will solve the problem, but it is nowhere near doing that. The only answer is to spend far more money educating prisoners who are asking for education and to build more new prisons so that prisoners are not living on top of each other.

The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), one item in whose proposals is to halt the prison building programme. I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible. The hon. Gentleman made a serious point. I hope that if we can succeed with the fresh start proposals, which we now have a better chance of doing thanks to some constructive negotiations with the POA and governors, resources will be available to provide more staff and better regimes, including more space and time for education. I fully understand the importance of that.

Why does it take seven years to build a prison? Should we not consider privatising them and getting them built in three or four years?

There are several reasons why it takes seven years to build a prison. About the first two years are spent discussing proposals with local authorities and local residents, who say that they are in favour of the prison building programme so long as it does not take place in their town or county. The process is a long one, and my hon. Friend is on an interesting trail. I am looking forward to the Select Committee report that will bear on this. I do not believe in privatising prisons if that means transferring the ownership, for example of Dartmoor, to a private company. I do not think that my hon. Friend has that in mind. I am interested in any ideas which, by using private enterprise, cut short the time for building a prison.

When will the Home Secretary stop dodging his responsibilities? He knows that this country locks up more people than any other country in Western Europe. He also knows that, under this Government, the crime rate has risen faster than in any other comparable country and faster than under any previous Labour or Tory Government. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put money into crime prevention and victim support instead of throwing public money into a prison building programme that will not solve the problem this century or next century?

We are the first Government who have put the emphasis on crime prevention and now on victim support. I am glad that, to some extent, we have the support of the Labour party on this. I say to some extent because of the disgraceful way in which some London boroughs, not the hon. Gentleman's, obstruct neighbourhood watch schemes and prevent the police from getting crime prevention under way. As a London Member of Parliament the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to encourage some London boroughs to follow the line that his borough of Hammersmith and Fulham initiated when it was under Tory control.

As our prisons are overcrowded, will my right hon. Friend consider a system whereby, instead of giving prisoners remission for good conduct, we give them longer sentences for misbehaving? Does he not consider that such a system would be so unacceptable to people that they would start to behave themselves and that would soon empty the prisons?

I believe that the immediate effect would be a substantial increase in the prison population. It is not a path that I am tempted to go down.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to improve the clear-up rate for burglary.

Operational decisions about the investigation of specific offences are a matter for chief constables, but I know that in the case of burglary a number of forces are using screening techniques to try to improve clear-up rates by targeting resources. However, most burglary is opportunistic and there is therefore considerable scope for preventive action—a point which is being enhanced in current crime prevention publicity.

Given the appalling increase in the number of burglaries since the Government came to office, would it not now be sensible for the Government to reconsider the limitations on spending experienced in the metropolitan counties after the abolition of the metropolitan authorities? That has resulted in problems, such as in the West Yorkshire, where senior police officials have had to spend time persuading the Home Office and the Department of the Environment to spend more money on the police, when the Labour-controlled authorities wanted to spend that money. I suspect that the ratepayers shared that desire. That time would be more effectively spent with additional resources and more police on the ground. That would be a better way of detecting more burglaries and of making sure that we do not get the petty political interference in the police that we have experienced under the Government.

I have heard a number of silly interventions while I have been in my present job, but that is one of the sillier ones. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 1987–88, we intend to spend 46 per cent. more, in real terms, on the police service than was spent in 1978–79. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the police service strength is about 16,000 more than it was when the Labour party was last in power.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve detection rates of crime and burglary is to increase the number of police on the ground? Does he also agree that, because of some unfortunate oversight, the number of police in Sussex is to be reduced to improve the numbers guarding Gatwick airport? Since Gatwick airport is a national responsibility and is separately provided for by the British Airports Authority, can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the number of police in Sussex will be reconsidered sympathetically?

I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who argues his corner with great lucidity. He is always courteous, but not always wholly right. He will appreciate that the process of civilianisation over the past 12 months or so, together with the increase in recruiting in Sussex, has put on to the beat about an extra 100 men.

Will the Minister note that one reported burglary takes place every 34 seconds in England and Wales? Is he aware that the clear-up rate for burglary is only 27 in every 100? Does he accept the chilling view of Mr. Mike Hough, a senior Home Office crime expert, that the police cannot solve everyday crime and that people are now on their own? Does that not mean that our homes and streets are being left to the burglars and muggers?

The Labour party is having a jolly time kicking own goals today, because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to remember, in 1986 the number of residential burglaries cleared up rose by 5 per cent. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is proposing to clear the prison population by 10,000 in the first year of a Labour Government, and by 20,000 by the end of the Parliament. That would mean liberating into the community a very large number of professional burglars.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the effect of neighbourhood watch schemes on the level of crime.

Where police forces have been able to isolate crime figures for areas covered by individual schemes the results have indicated that well-run schemes can reduce the level of local crime.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 96 per cent. of all recorded crime is against property? In the light of the appalling figures, does he agree that we need a national crusade against crime, engaging every part of the community? Does he agree that neighbourhood watch schemes have an important part to play?

I do indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy and I note with particular pleasure that in the county of Sussex, which he represents so well, there were 350 neighbourhood watch schemes in October 1986 and that that number has increased to 1,903. Taking a broader perspective, there are now 28,500 neighbourhood watch schemes in the country, which means that the number has trebled in the last year.

Is the Minister aware that I fully support neighbourhood watch schemes, of which there are many in the Northumbria police area? Is he further aware that since 1978 burglary in that area has increased by 83 per cent.? That means that we have a burglary every 10 minutes. Is it not time that the Minister increased Northumbria's police establishment and that the police got their backsides out of panda cars and their feet on the beat?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of neighbourhood watch. I am not in the least suprised, because he will know of the neighbourhood watch scheme at Millfield and Fawdon in his county, where offences of burglary and car theft have been reduced by 25 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many areas neighbourhood watch schemes are not making good progress? In my county of Hampshire progress is slow. Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the crimes which neighbourhood watch should be able to detect remain unobserved? Is he aware of the serious problem of the bogus water inspector, the bogus electricity inspector and the bogus health inspector? [Interruption.]

Order.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the bogus officials who call on pensioners, ransack their houses and steal their life savings? Does he agree that more attention should be paid to that problem by the police within the neighbourhood watch schemes?

My hon. Friend's constituents must also be warned about the bogus politicians who sit on the Opposition Benches.

I accept that neighbourhood watch schemes have a part to play in crime prevention, but do they not represent the totality of the Government's crime prevention policies? Is it not time that we had more action, a positive strategy and a real sense of commitment?

The hon. Member is an awfully nice chap, but he really must not laugh when he talks about the next Labour Government. I know that he does not believe that it is going to happen, but he should not make his disbelief so apparent. Another own goal! The Government are spending £50 million a year. or rather more, on crime prevention, very much along the lines which the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Will my hon. Friend commend the encouragement given by the Cheshire constabulary to the setting up of neighbourhood watch schemes in Cheshire, and particularly commend Major Hugh Thornburn and the Alderley Edge parish council, which have recently, in conjunction and co-operation with the Cheshire constabulary, held an oustandingly successful neighbourhood watch scheme exhibition and seminar, which was widely supported by the public in the area?

My hon. Friend's intervention only makes plain what we already knew, that he is a really formidable constituency Member. Praise from him is infinitely more valuable than praise from me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed regulatory system for community radio broadcasts.

We have so far received one letter commenting on the system of regulation proposed in the Green Paper published in February.

How practicable does the Minister think it would be to control the political input into community broadcasting?

Very practicable.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever system of community broadcasting is finally decided upon, he will make sure that there is proper provision for the linguistic groups within our society?

Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the workings of the legislation relating to cruelty to animals and what reply he has sent.

We are making it clear, in reply to a number of representations that we have received recently, that the Government are wholeheartedly committed to combating cruelty to animals. We support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)) to double the maximum penalties under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. We have given careful thought to the proposal that the police should have a power of entry to investigate allegations of cruelty to animals, but this would not be appropriate. We are looking carefully and sympathetically at other proposals for changes to the legislation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the proposals put forward by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to modernise the 76-year old Act of Parliament are generally very constructive? Will he give an assurance that these are being seriously considered in the Department with a view to some action being taken on this matter?

This issue is of the greatest importance, and therefore the Government are giving urgent and sympathetic consideration to what we can do to improve protection for animals. We are, to start with, considering extending the banning powers. The question is whether we can also extend the protection under the 1911 Act without at the same time putting at risk legitimate country sports. I shall not in any way support measures that will put those at risk. But yes, this is a very important matter.

Does that mean that the Government, in looking into the question of cruelty to animals, are continuing to accept that there should be hare coursing, stag hunting and fox hunting? Is that not a contradiction in terms? If it is agreed that we should look into the question of cruelty to animals, surely we should also decide that the time has come to get rid of these so-called sports?

I make no apology for explaining my own personal position. I have always enjoyed and participated in country sports, including shooting and fishing. I make no apology whatsoever for that. In a democratic society people have a right to do that and there is no way that I would seek to surrender that right.

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 last met the Commissioner on Wednesday 18 March, together with representatives of the London local authority associations, when we discuessed his strategy for 1987.

I wonder whether the Home Secretary discussed with the Commissioner the crime figures in inner London in general, and in the borough of Southwark in particular, and whether he is aware that the increase in the figures has been horrendous? There has been an 11 per cent. increase in criminal damage, a 14 per cent. increase in a year in sexual offences and a 20 per cent. increase in a year in burglary and going equipped. At the same time, the detection rate has dropped from 14 to 10 per cent. What strategy have the Home Office and the Commissioner for reassuring the citizens of an inner London borough such as mine that they will be better protected against the criminal in the years to come?

Part of the answer is an increase in the strength of the Metropolitan police. The hon. Member will have seen the latest figures, which show the increase in establishment that I have just authorised and the way in which the Metropolitan police are recruiting up to that. That is part of the answer. The rest of the answer, particularly in the hon. Member's part of the world, is to get together all the agencies, including the public and private sector agencies and organisations, in the fight against crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special steps are being taken to curb the high incidence of crime committed by 15 to 16-year-olds.

We have encouraged many local initiatives, and a working group of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention has been set up to deal specifically with reducing juvenile crime.

Has my hon. Friend seen the recent remarks of the chief constable of Thames Valley, who said that the greater involvement of the police through the crime prevention element of the schools programme, the fewer the number of children who became involved in crime? If that is so, what pressure can he bring to bear on those local education authorities which refuse to allow the police to lecture in their schools?

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. It is vital that the police have the opportunity to go into schools and spread the message about crime prevention. Far too many Labour authorities are preventing the police from carrying out that essential task.

Does the Minister think that abolishing the dole for teenagers who refuse to go on youth training schemes will increase, or reduce, crime? Is he aware that it now costs £327 a week to keep a teenager in prison, but only £18·40 a week when he is on the dole?

I would be rather more impressed by that question if it were not true that the Labour-dominated borough of Haringey had issued about 25,000 passes, called "bust passes", telling schoolchildren not to cooperate with the police if they are stopped.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public get no satisfaction from seeing hon. Members hurling about insults over crime statistics? If we wish to get to the bottom of this, we must consider the problem of television at a time when children of school age watch television for more hours than they are in school. Is it not true that the best way that we can proceed with this matter is by supporting the private Member's Bill tomorrow?

I agree with the conclusion and also echo what my hon. Friend said, that we—especially those in the Labour party—tend to underestimate the duties of schools and parents in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to seek to deal with pick-pocketing in London in the light of the recent increase in its incidence.

The Commissioner's strategy for 1987 highlighted his determination to tackle street crime. I understand that this includes pick-pocketing and that additional resources have been provided to help to combat the problem. In particular, territorial operations support groups were formed in January and each division has been authorised to form a divisional crime squad to combat street crime, including pick-pocketing.

Although the Minister has declined to give the figures, will he bear in mind that the increase in Faganism, which is clearly reflected in his reply, suggests that the Government's economic policies have an influence on these matters among communities and families? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend in Cabinet to seek a change in those policies?

Talking about economic policies, the one pick-pocket that this country needs to beware of is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

Is it not about time that the Opposition stopped excusing crime and started condemning it?

That advice is long overdue and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will heed it, although I doubt that they will.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting the payment from public funds of the return air fare from Pakistan to the United Kingdom of Aurang Zeb.

Representations have been received from the hon. Member and from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). Representations have also been made by way of early-day motion 702.

Will the Minister confirm that the Ombudsman condemned the way in which Mr. Zeb was removed from this country within 17 hours of his arrival as a denial of natural justice, and that his principal officer apologised to me and to his sponsor because we had been denied an opportunity to make representations on his behalf? Will the Minister confirm that he apologised for the way that Mr. Zeb had been treated? Will he now add some modest generosity to that apology by paying a return air flight for Mr. Zeb from Pakistan to this country so that he can have a short holiday with his friends and relatives, which he was denied last year?

Mr. Zeb was refused entry—in my view rightly—as not being a genuine visitor. As he was not a genuine visitor and has not appealed against that decision, I do not think the British public would be delighted if we brought him back here for a free holiday. The complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner was not about the refusal of entry, but about Mr. Zeb being removed without sufficient effort being made to contact his sponsor. The immigration service has apologised for that, and the Parliamentary Commisioner said in his report that he thought the apology was an appropriate outcome.

Before we start Prime Minister's questions today, may I again remind the House that supplementary questions to the Prime Minister must relate to her responsibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that if pensions were still linked to earnings increases, under Labour's formula a single pensioner would be £6 a week better off? If Britain's economy is as good as the Prime Minister pretends, why is it that a single pensioner will get only a measly 80p next week?

Had Labour been in power Britain would have gone broke long ago, and many of her contracts with pensioners with it. As it is, we have honoured our pledge to keep the pension more than in line with inflation. We have got inflation down. People's incomes from savings and pensions are greatly up, and people can look forward to a future with security.

After me right hon. Friend's forthright talks in Moscow, will she undertake to continue the same process with Tokyo?

We have embarked upon forthright discussions with Tokyo. Just before I came in 1 received a letter from Mr. Nakasone saying that the matter of Cable and Wireless was being considered, and, as my hon. Friend probably knows, we are laying today an order under the Financial Services Act.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the figures obtained from the Treasury last week, which show that the direct tax burden on families of half average, average and one and a half times average income has increased significantly, and in some cases savagely, under her Government? Is that what she meant eight years ago this month when she promised that under her Government

"taxes must and taxes will be cut"?

I am delighted that the Labour party is now so concerned about reducing income tax that it has reversed its previous policy and now supports us. Real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings—[Interruption.] Real net take-home earnings—which is what people are interested in—for a married man on average earnings have risen by 21 per cent. since 1978–79. They barely increased under Labour.

The right hon. Lady is in some danger of misleading the country with those figures. In her comparisons with the Labour Government, is she aware that the rise in the burden under her Government has been twice as big as it was under the Labour Government? Is she aware that, far from her claims relating to people on average, below average, and above average income, the family on £114 a week is in real terms £5 a week worse off because of the direct tax take, and that the family on average earnings of £227 a week is £6-odd worse off because of total tax increase? Will she answer the real question? Is that what she meant when she said that she would cut taxes?

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that average earnings have gone up enormously, and with them net take-home pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tax".] Yes, right, let us talk about tax. We removed the national insurance surcharge, which the Labour party shoved on jobs. We took it off. Had we left that on, income tax could have been 3p lower than it is. We did not approve of a tax on jobs, so we took it off. The right hon. Gentleman quotes figures. If we had kept Labour's income tax and national insurance regime as it was, a married man on average earnings, with two children, would now be paying £4·85 a week more in income tax and national insurance contributions.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the many benefits to accrue from her visit to Moscow is that she has brought back orders and letters of intent to the value of £400 million to British industry? Is that not good news for the country and for the jobless?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Soviet Prime Minister proposed, and I accepted, an annual target of aggregate trade between the Soviet Union and this country of £2·5 billion by 1990. That means putting up our present trade, but we are going in that direction, because while I was there contracts to the value of £400 million were signed, including a very good one with GEC—[HON. MEMBERS: "Letters of intent."] Letters of intent—[Interruption.]

Order.

There was a letter of intent, a memorandum of understanding, between GEC and Simon Carves for a very big sum for electronic equipment, and also a major one for John Brown, the construction firm, to construct a polypropylene plant, which will bring jobs very much where they are needed. It is very good news. I am so sorry that the Opposition, who are always complaining about unemployment, have not the guts to admit it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

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

On the subject of human rights, now that they are very much in vogue, and the question of sacked miners in Britain, in view of what British Coal has had to say today whereby 300 sacked miners are still not to be allowed to return to work, will the Prime Minister—as she professes to practise what she preaches— call on British Coal to see to it that those 300 miners are treated properly? Why is it, if they cannot get their jobs back, that miners should be treated differently from swindling Tory Members of Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the case that he raises about miners is a matter for the National Coal Board. While the hon. Gentleman is talking about human rights, may I point out that many miners wanted freedom from intimidation when they insisted on going to work during the coal strike.

As we are 10 minutes into Question Time and it has not formally been done, may I offer the Prime Minister a very warm welcome back after her quite remarkable visit—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.

While my right hon. Friend was away, dealing with the rather marginal issues of peace, security and human rights, she may not have noticed that the Opposition were dealing with the really nitty-gritty problem facing society and were litigating over nursery rhymes and party political broadcasts—

Order. I do not think that that is the Prime Minister's responsibility. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity. I cannot keep on giving these warnings. The hon. Gentleman must keep his question in order.

rose—

Order. Mr. John Cartwright.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time, since her return from Moscow, to see the report of the Royal College of Nursing, which suggests that a combination of high housing costs and low pay has resulted in as many as one in four nursing jobs being left unfilled in London hospitals? Does she share the view of the Royal College of Nursing that if something is not done urgently patients will be put at risk? What action will her Government take to tackle this problem?

Nurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. over and above inflation since the Government came into office. The number of nurses and midwives has risen by 60,000 since 1979. 1 understand that there are reports on staff shortages in London. Expenditure on health services in London has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and the National Health Service management board has commissioned a report to look at any particular problems over the recruitment of nurses in London. A study team expects to report by late spring and the board will then consider what action may he required.

Following the establishment of a unique and valuable rapport between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the leader of the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend be bringing to our friends and allies in NATO and the West the benefit of that relationship which she has established, and can she therefore give us hope for a more secure future based on that relationship and the work that she has already done?

Yes, we are in touch with all our NATO colleagues about the results of my visit to Moscow. It is our intention to follow up all matters closely, because we believe that it is essential to create greater friendship, trust and confidence if we are to get the benefit of reductions in nuclear and other weapons.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware, when she talks about health services in London, of the hospital closures that have taken place during the eight years of her Government, of the effect that that has had on local communities and that we are now facing in London something that is called "hot-bedding", which means that in-patients have to vacate their beds during the day so that day patients can make use of them? Is that not an indictment of the attitude of the hon. Lady and her Government towards health services, not only in London, but up and down the country?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, day surgery is on the increase and it is very welcome. Many people wish to get home as soon as they can after surgery and it means a far greater and better use of doctors' and nurses' time. As far as London is concerned—[Interruption.]

Order.

As I said a moment ago, expenditure on health services in London has risen—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a matter of great interest to many London Members, of whom I am one.

Expenditure on health services in London has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms, over and above inflation, since 1979.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

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

In the light of the dire threat to many of our youth and employment training schemes, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her Government's commitment to such schemes, because the dire threat, according to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), is that a Labour Government would not contemplate them?

Yes, I confirm that we shall continue the youth training scheme, which, as my hon. Friend knows, has been increased to two years and gives excellent training opportunities to young people, which will help them to get better jobs than they might otherwise have had. My hon. Friend will also be aware that we have just launched a new job training scheme which will be for six months and will soon be training about 250,000 young people a year, particularly for jobs where employers find it difficult to find people to fill vacancies. I understand from the Labour party that it would like a similar scheme. When we introduce such a scheme the Labour party calls it fiddling the figures. If it were to introduce such a scheme, it would call it proper training.