To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has undertaken in order to ascertain views as to the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

There have been at least 15 years of public debate on the matter, and there will be full opportunities to comment on the Government's proposals before legislation is introduced.

Will the Home Secretary make sure, in the months between the debate last Friday on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the White Paper that the Government plan for the summer, that he listens to the views of the country as a whole and not to the increasingly dominant view in his party that secrecy is justifiable? Is the Home Secretary aware that only two out of the 53 new Conservative Members elected in June voted for freedom of information? Is that not an indictment of a view that is generally rubbished, namely, that the Government put their own self-defence at a far more important level than the general interests of the nation and its ability to judge issues?

Order. I ask for brief questions, because long questions lead to too long answers.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. People who wish to express views to us obviously have a choice to do so between now and June, the time of the White Paper, or after the White Paper and before the legislation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all these matters of secrecy are of interest mainly to the media, and that the mass of ordinary patriotic people want state secrets to be kept as state secrets?

I must say that when I arrived in my constituency at the weekend I found a rather different flavour to the discussion there from the one here. We have a serious job to do, to honour the commitments that the Prime Minister and I have given to the House. During the debate on Friday many hon. Members explained how difficult that job will be. I agree with that, but we intend to do it.

Does the Home Secretary recall that during the debate on Friday quotations were read to the House from the book by Mr. Anthony Cavendish, in which Mr. Cavendish said that the security service had recently been involved in operations to discredit Members on both sides of the House. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that such allegations should be suppressed under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act rather than be investigated, as they would be in any other democracy?

I do not wish to comment on the Cavendish case or the injunctions that have borne on that particular publication. I would much rather have a decent, restricted system for the protection of official information than the present system, which is open to misinterpretation and misuse, and that is what we intend to get.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has had with represenatives of gun clubs; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has met representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council, which represents a wide range of sporting and trade interests. I have met representatives of the Shooters' Rights Association, and the United Kingdom Practical Rifle Commission, and Home Office officals have met a number of other organisations.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the excellent work carried out by many gun clubs up and down the country, including in Norwich and the surrounding area, and the genuine concern about some of the measures to be put forward in the legislation to be debated this afternoon, will my hon. Friend say more about the discussions that he may have had with the gun clubs about licensing arrangements and compensation?

I recognise that the issue of compensation causes considerable concern to right hon. and hon. Members. There are serious objections to compensation, but we are prepared to give further thought to the fresh arguments that have been put forward. However, I should emphasise that I believe that there are still great difficulties, both of principle and of practice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although there may be objections to the principle of compensation, there are greater objections to not paying compensation because of what may happen as a result of the disposal of such firearms? Will he undertake to keep an open mind on that matter as the Bill progresses?

I shall always consider extremely carefully the points that my right hon. and hon. Friends make. None the less, there are difficulties of principle that we cannot ignore. However, I repeat that we are prepared to give further thought to the arguments that have been put forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider collecting statistics for entrants to the United Kingdom on the basis of ethnicity.

No, Sir. The statistics collected on passenger admissions by nationality are sufficient to meet all the Department's major needs for information on entrants to the United Kingdom.

The Minister will be aware of the large number of complaints of racism at the ports of entry to this country. Does he agree that one way of ensuring that a check is kept on that problem would be by recording ethnicity? For example, if 20 Nigerians were denied entry, one could reasonably assume that they were all black. However, if 20 Americans or South Africans are denied entry, one does not know their colour.

I reject the charge of racism against our immigration authorities and officers. Both the Manchester Council for Community Relations and the Commission for Racial Equality have in recent reports said they believe that immigration officers discharge their obligations without regard to race, colour or religion, as they are required to do by the rules.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to collect the statistics, suggested by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) would be likely to lead to their misuse, as they would reflect only one criterion?

Yes, that is right. Let us consider, for example, South Africans — be they black or white —coming into this country. If they have British citizenship by descent, they will travel here on British passports and their entry to the country will not be reflected in such statistics.

Does the Minister accept that many people wishing to enter this country — members of ethnic minorities and others — complain of the horrendous delays at Heathrow caused by the heavy burden that rests on immigration officers? Far more of the complaints in my constituency and elsewhere come from people from ethnic minorities and their families and friends seeking lawful entry as visitors than from anyone else.

I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, since we introduced the visa regime for five countries — including those of the Indian subcontinent—over a year ago, the number of complaints of difficulties at our major ports of entry has diminished substantially. However, I agree that there are unacceptable delays, and that is one reason why we have put changes in the immigration rules before the House for debate next week. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will support them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that ethnicity is no more relevant to immigration control than the colour of an immigrant's hair? We ask only that immigration control should be exercised in the interests of the British people as a whole, whatever the colour of their skin.

I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I remind him that one of the first immigration rules is that immigration officers should exercise their powers without regard to race, colour or religion. I believe that they do that, and it is very important that they should.

Why does the Minister not take more concerted action to overcome deficiencies in the Home Office statistics, which refer to appalling discrimination between black and Asian people in this country? Why has he not done more?

I am totally unclear about the deficiency in the Home Office statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As discussed in the Immigration Bill Committee —to which I must not refer in the Chamber—we intend to put forward changes in the rules for debate in the House next week. They will greatly help immigration officers and Lunar House to attend more to the serious and desperate cases that hon. Members bring to my attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his experiment on restricting the period spent on remand in custody.

So far the custody time limits in force in Avon, Somerset, Kent and the west midlands are working well. From 1 April I propose to extend the tighter limits in the first three areas to Greater Manchester, the whole of Wales and to Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Wiltshire. In the west midlands the time limit to committal will be reduced from 98 to 84 days, and time limits will be extended to the Crown courts at Coventry and Dudley.

As a lawyer, I hesitate to suggest that lawyers never do today what they can put off until tomorrow. The news from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not only desirable but necessary. When can we expect the experiment to be extended to the whole country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that when that is done there will be less pressure on prisons and their staff, a saving of money and a reduction of the time during which innocent people can be kept in gaol?

We are proceeding gradually so that we can benefit by experience. So far our experience has been good, and that is why I have today referred to a further substantial step to reduce delays in justice. As we get on, I hope to extend the provisions over the whole country and to re-examine the time limits to see whether they can be tightened further.

As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which made that recommendation, may I remind the Home Secretary that one of our major concerns was that enormous numbers of those in our prison population were on remand? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is happening to the proportion of prisoners on remand in areas where the experiment is in operation'?

Not without notice. However, I hope and estimate that, as a result of the extension of the time limits that I have announced, there will be a reduction of between 300 and 600 in the prison remand population.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the 110-day rule that operates in Scotland and the United States—with which he is tinkering in the experiment—were introduced, there would be a substantial reduction in the time spent in custody awaiting trial and in the prison population? Will he consider bringing forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to introduce such a provision as speedily as possible?

We have the powers. We took them under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and we are using them. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that the Scottish procedures are different, and the 110-day procedure is not absolutely applicable across the border. With the exception of the west midlands, we are working towards 56 days to summary proceedings, 70 days to committal and 112 days to arraignment in the Crown court.

Will the Home Secretary e plain the logic behind his decision today? Why, if he is so favourably impressed with the experiment, is he just extending it? If he agrees with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, why does he not introduce the procedure for the country as a whole?

Because I want to make sure that the arrangements are in place and that the limits are practicable. Nothing is worse than to introduce a substantial change of this kind at a pace and in a way that brings it into discredit because people cannot operate it. We are gradually extending and tightening it. The Opposition might be a little more gracious about the progress that we are making.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the system for approval of the construction of courthouses so as to reduce delays.

No, Sir. The procedures are already designed to ensure that scarce capital resources are used to provide good operational buildings economically and as quickly as possible. I understand that Essex county council intends to go to tender this week for the new magistrates courthouse in Basildon, with a view to completion early in 1990.

Will my hon. Friend accept my gratitude and that of my constituents for the support of the Home Office and Essex county council for the building of the new courthouse in Basildon? Will he also accept that, due to the intolerable pressures on the old courthouse in Billericay, it would be irresponsible for anyone to delay the building of the new courthouse further?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that there will be no further delays with the new courthouse now that it has gone to tender. My hon. Friend's warm thanks are greatly appreciated. They are sometimes sparing in the direction of the Dispatch Box. I quite often happily visit Basildon with my hon. Friend. I will be there shortly in his company looking at an important crime prevention project funded by the private sector, and I hope to have a chance to look at the new courthouse site.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider the merits of combined magistrates and county court buildings, such as the excellent building at Staines in Middlesex, and contrast that with the position in Solihull, where we have a superb magistrates court, but no county court?

I sometimes go to Solihull as well. We consider the issues on their merits. We like to try to combine the provision of justice with the provision of other social facilities wherever that makes sense for the local community and can be afforded.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received during the past year on the future of broadcasting.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish his proposals for the future of broadcasting.

In recent months I have received many representations in various forms about the future of broadcasting. I announced our radio proposals on Tuesday and will within the next few months be publishing further proposals for broadcasting legislation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with regard to television, the British public get a pretty raw deal from the current BBC-ITV duopoly? Is he aware that on many occasions second-rate sports programmes are broadcast simultaneously on three of the four channels, often with two channels covering the same event? Is there not an overwhelming argument for the setting up of a fifth television channel and for giving the go-ahead for short-range local television stations?

We are looking at a whole range of matters relating to television. Unfortunately, they must be considered together because they relate to each other, and that is why this matter is taking some time. They include the point referred to by my hon. Friend and the possibility of a Channel 5, the future organisation of Channel 4, how ITV contracts should be let in future, the possibility of the multipoint video distribution system and the use of night hours. There is a big agenda.

In his written answer on 19 January the Home Secretary said that community radio should be subject to light restriction. Is it still the Government's intention to prevent those providing community radio services from expressing views on matters of political or industrial controversy? If, for example, there was a proposal in a particular community for the dumping of nuclear waste, would that not be precisely the kind of issue on which a community radio station should be entitled to pronounce?

The hon. and learned Gentleman should consider paragraph 7.7 of the Green Paper. Nothing in the statement that I made on Tuesday alters that. We believe that stations, including local stations, should ensure that any news, given in whatever form, is presented with accuracy and impartiality. There are a number of provisions to avoid allowing the views and opinions of particular persons to predominate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman considers paragraph 7.7 of the Green Paper, he will find the answer that he is seeking.

Under the legislation proposed by my right hon. Friend, will it be possible to have a dedicated London Jazz radio station?

Yes, indeed, if the proposals for such a station meet the criteria—and I see no reason why they should not. Some of the people who first interested me in the idea of community radio wanted to do exactly that.

Would it not be wise, before the Government legislate, following their statement of a couple of days ago in a written answer, to give the House a chance to comment on the proposals?

The right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition have ways of doing that if they wish. I shall take the suggestion seriously into account. I do not want to rush into these matters. It will be some months before there is any legislation.

What representations has my right hon. Friend received about the 9 o'clock rule for television? Many of us are concerned about programmes that appear on television well before 9 o'clock, the content of which is unsuitable for children.

Occasionally, so am I, and I have twice—most recently just before Christmas — called in the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA to express my continuing anxiety about violence on television. I would much rather that they dealt with the matter in accordance with the guidelines. However, as my hon. Friend knows, we shall soon be setting up the new broadcasting standards council. That is the sort of issue with which I expect it will concern itself.

Was it not a grave discourtesy to the House to announce these major changes in broadcasting by way of a parliamentary question and an answer so long that it amounted to a statement? Why did the Home Secretary not come here and allow the House to examine the matter in further detail? When will we have that opportunity? Will the auctioning off of these three national independent channels allow people from abroad to bid for them?

There was a discourtesy to the House in that when the answer was available it was about an hour late, and I apologise for that. There was a mishap with regard to the copy sent to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and he and I have been in correspondence about that. I do not think that it was out of place to carry the discussion forward in a written statement, as what I said followed closely the Green Paper that was published some time ago and as the House will have substantial opportunities to go over the matter in detail when legislation is introduced.

How many of the 500 representations that the Home Secretary received about the Green Paper recommended that he should auction off the licences to the highest bidder? Does he understand that to sell off something as powerful and culturally important as a radio licence is completely irresponsible and careless, and that it did not command even the support of many of the companies and individuals who were likely to make applications for licences?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has thought the matter through. We are talking about how one allocates three national commercial channels. One can either have a body that sits down and arbitrates —maybe in an unsatisfactory or concealed way—or have what we propose, which is a standard of variety. Any applicant will have to pass a test of variety before a tender is accepted. Once that hurdle is surmounted—the need to provide variety on each national channel—it can be done by tender so that the Exchequer and the taxpayer can benefit to a certain extent from the use of this limited national resource.

How does my right hon. Friend intend to control the content of internationally transmitted direct broadcasting by satellite?

Negotiation is going on in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg with the aim of producing, if possible, a convention treaty that will bind the 21 members and provide for some enforcement machinery. Apart from that, we are considering whether other additional methods might be necessary. It is one of the most difficult aspects of this problem. I hope that if the Council of Europe can reach agreement the necessary legislation will be put before the House before too long.

First, may I give the Home Secretary another opportunity to apologise to the House for his discourtesy in making a statement about a major change in broadcasting policy by way of a written answer on Tuesday, instead of coming here so that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members could ask him questions?

I think that I have already covered the first point and do not want to repeat myself. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reference in the Green Paper to content and to what I would call the "consumer protection" part of the proposals and the standards to be required by the new radio authority, he will see that they are set out at some length. The House will want to debate that in detail when the legislation is considered in Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many farmwatch schemes are operated in England and Wales by county constabularies; and if he will make a statement.

Information about the number of farmwatch schemes is not held centrally. Farmwatch is one of a number of variations of the neigbourhood watch concept; others include hospital watch and business watch. The number of such schemes continues to grow and we are much encouraged by this evidence of the willingness of so many individuals to work together, and with the police, to help prevent crime in their areas.

Will my hon. Friend join in congratulating the Wiltshire constabulary on its initiation of the scheme, which has led not only to a decrease in rural crime, including farm theft, illegal hare coursing and other crimes, but to an improvement in the use of police resources and help with the scheme from the whole community, including environmental groups and shooting clubs?

The answer to that is yes. The type of work that is being carried out in the Amesbury sub-division of the Wiltshire police area is exemplary. I hope that other such areas up and down the country which face the problems of rural crime will think about going along the same path.[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members who want to have private conversations should do so outside.

What assistance will the Minister give those on the farmwatch scheme to stop the property developers and the city slickers preying on the land, buying it and then turning it into suburbialand, thus changing the natural beauty of Britain?

That is an interesting development of the farmwatch concept, but I am happy to say that it is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were charged with offences relating to drink and driving over the Christmas period; how these numbers compare with previous equivalent periods; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that information will not be available in the form requested until the second half of this year. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has collated provisional figures for England and Wales which show that there were 5,259 positive roadside breath tests in the period 19 December 1987 to 1 January 1988. I am encouraged by the widespread support for the way in which the police and the Government tackled the drinking and driving problem over the Christmas period. I hope that that will be reflected in the official statistics when they are available later this year.

Although figures show a marginal and welcome improvement, does my hon. Friend agree that so much excess drinking at Christmas time is a real problem? Bearing in mind the enormous social pressures on so many people to consume alcohol at Christmas time, will he seek to take steps to require publicans to stock non-alcoholic wines and beers, especially at that time?

My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of making available non-alcoholic drinks in pubs.

Is it not time that the Minister started patting some drivers on the back? Does he realise that in the past 20 years, while the number of cars has increased enormously, the number of accidents has gone down yet the Scottish Temperance Society continually uses the issue to slag off drivers who have an excellent record? Is it not a fact that a lorry speeding through fog on a motorway can cause far more damage, and that more people were killed at Christmas by dangerous foam-filled furniture than were killed on the roads by drunken drivers?

The truth is that drinking and driving simply do not go together, and it is the business of the Government to communicate that fact as frequently as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable relief about the success of the campaign last Christmas to discourage people from drinking and driving? Does he recognise that the problem of drinking and driving is not confined to Christmas, but takes place throughout the year, during much of which there is no talk at all about the dangers of such behaviour? Will he use all the resources of his Department to ensure that there is a year-on-year campaign, not one that takes place merely during public holidays?

My hon. Friend's point is very much in the mind of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. In substance, I agree with what he has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the future of community radio in Britain.

Many of the responses to our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", published last year, welcomed the prospect of community radio. As my right hon. Friend announced on 19 January, we intend to bring before Parliament legislative proposals based on the Green Paper.

I am sure that those with an interest in community radio will be very glad that the Green Paper has given the green light to it. Is the Minister able to announce a time scale in which he hopes the proposals will be implemented? As he is no doubt aware, the Shetland Islands Broadcasting Company has been on the air in my constituency and — judging by representations that I have received — is popular. Can the Minister say how the proposals will affect that company?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the proposals that we are announcing. Assuming that it is possible for a Bill to be brought before Parliament in the next Session, I hope that the proposals will be law by the end of the summer of 1989, and that the radio authority will then be able to consider community radio applications and start issuing licences.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) male and (b) female prisoners aged less than 17 years old are currently held on remand in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

On 30 September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available centrally, about 165 untried and 15 convicted unsentenced males aged under 17 were held in prison department establishments in England and Wales. Girls aged under 17 may not be remanded into prison custody.

I am sure the Minister agrees with the importance of the rapid development of bail hostels. Does he agree that the present development of such hostels is too slow, and is there any way of speeding it up?

I am glad that we have the hon. Gentleman's support for our policy of introducing more bail hostels.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales.

On 30 November there were about 37,450 sentenced prisoners in prison department establishments in England and Wales.

In view of the ever-increasing rate of serious crime during the Government's period of office, and noting that under the White Paper on public expenditure the provision for law and order seems unlikely to improve much after 1989, may I ask whether the Minister can be sure that all the extra prisons that his Department is to provide will be filled?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has put such a question. For one thing, I should have thought that his party's position was a trifle embarrassing, in that when Labour was in government in the 1970s it failed to do anything about a prison building programme. I am also surprised that he has not welcomed the Government's present building programme, which will produce over 21,000 more places by 1995 than the number when we first came to office.

Some people sent to prison are there as a result of having caused death by driving, having drunk too much. Can my hon. Friend comment on a further point? The public are not clear whether random breath-testing is allowed because of different policies pursued by different chief constables. Can my hon. Friend say whether random breath-testing is, or is not, lawful?

Random stopping is allowed under section 159 of the Highways Act 1980. Random testing is not lawful.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to introduce a national numbering system for each individual over 18 years.

No, Sir.

If the Home Secretary does not intend to introduce a system of national numbering and, presumably, like all his predecessors, would regard such a system as undesirable, what representations will he make to his colleagues in the Cabinet about the fact that the poll tax will require just such a system, as defined in the report commissioned by the Scottish Office from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? Is he aware that the report makes it clear that the poll tax cannot work without a system of national numbering — a state ID system—to be known as a community identifier? Does he agree that, as a by-product of the poll tax, we shall go down the road of a state identification system for every individual?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local authorities will have the responsibility of compiling the lists of those liable to the community charge. They will be able to draw on a range of lists to compile the community charge list.

As most other countries have identity cards, and as they would greatly help to combat terrorism and other crimes, including social security fraud, what possible argument is there against them?

I know how strongly my hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends feel about the issue. However, there is no evidence that in 1952, when identity cards were withdrawn, the police were put into difficulty. We have had no representation from the police that they find difficulty in identifying most people when they need to in pursuit of crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to seek to change charities law; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to amend current arrangements for the monitoring and control of charities.

The Government have warmly welcomed the report by Sir Philip Woodfield of his efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities. We accept the report's conclusion that, while the essentials of the present supervisory framework are still necessary, the system needs extensive reform. The report's proposals to strengthen the Charity Commission's powers, and in particular its capacity to deal with abuse, provide a sound basis for the future.

The Home Secretary's statement will be welcome in view of the fact that charities are being abused, as he knows. There are cases where so-called charities are returning as little as 10 per cent, to charitable purposes. Business men are earning fat profits and running expense accounts and vehicles to dodge tax. When does the Home Secretary expect the legislation to be complete and in place?

We need to think it through carefully, but Sir Philip Woodfield clearly showed that the Charity Commission ought to spend more time monitoring and spotting the kind of problem to which the hon. Member referred, and less time carrying through pernickety procedures laid down by law, which should not have the same priority.

My right hon. Friend's announcement is very welcome on the Government side of the House. Does he accept that too many bodies which do not deserve it are taking considerable tax advantage of charitable status? Will he also accept that too many charities are suffering from maladministration and that too many charities are engaged in political advertising and political activity?

There has been a huge expansion of charitable activity in recent years. We need to make sure that the framework of law is right to guard against the problems. I am holding a seminar at the Home Office on Monday, to which many leading charities will be sending people, to clarify in our own minds more thoroughly what the content of legislation might be.

In view of their present position, can the Home Secretary tell us whether the Liberals and the SDP would now qualify for charity assistance?

I think they would have some difficulty in submitting to the commission the necessary details of their rules and membership.

To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest crime figures.

In the 12 months to the end of September 1987 recorded crime was 2·6 per cent. higher than in the previous 12 months. This is less than half the long-term rate of increase in recorded crime since the mid-1950s.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although one of the greatest deterrents against crime must be the ability to be caught, the Thames Valley police force, which he and I share, has the lowest ratio of police to public anywhere in the country? Can he give my constituents and his any hope on this point?

Thames Valley police force has just had an increase, and another increase in manpower is available from 1 April. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes into account the changes in population and in the resources available to the police locally, as well as the crime pattern, in deciding on future increases in police manpower. Thames Valley police force have just had a number of additional policemen authorised.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents have a great responsibility for their children, and is she aware that parents who find themselves at risk of transmitting severe genetic disorders, such as epidermolysis bullosa, which cannot be detected until the 18th week, wish to choose, on medical advice, whether or not they should continue with such a pregnancy?

My hon. Friend makes his point very effectively. It is a matter that will be considered in the debate tomorrow, when doubtless hon. Members will make up their own minds about how to vote on that Bill. It is for each of us to do that. Speaking for myself, as the Bill is drafted at present, I could not support it.

I am glad that, in at least one area, the Prime Minister and I are in complete agreement. When it is clear that the Prime Minister has enough money to meet the demands of the presidents of the royal colleges and of the nurses, without further dispute and without further crisis, why does she not use that money now?

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the public expenditure White Paper published yesterday that there is a very substantial increase in National Health Service expenditure for next year, 1988–89, of £1,100 million.

The Prime Minister knows that those figures are calculated on exactly the same basis as the figures for this year, which required her to find some supplementary sums and which still leave the hospitals in deficit. Does she not realise that she is guaranteeing a further underfunding crisis for next year unless there is an additional amount? Why does she not make Budget day a National Health day?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the public expenditure estimates have just been published. Before those were published, in December an additional £100 million was made available to the National Health Service to get over this difficult time of year for some. The amount of public expenditure has been decided. The Budget is about how to raise the taxation and borrowing, not how to add extra expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great pity that the Opposition and some parts of the media do not pay more attention to all the good news in the National Health Service? Was she as heartened as I was to learn of the formal opening earlier this week of the new maternity unit at St. Helier's hospital in my constituency, where the dedicated staff are able to deliver 10 babies a day? Does she agree that this is a sign of the excellent performance in the National Health Service and also of the vitality of the nation?

Yes, I noted the opening of that hospital, and I congratulate it on the way in which it has got up to its fullest possible capacity and on the excellent work it is doing. It would be pertinent to remind the House that, although we hear of difficult cases from time to time, since we discussed the National Health Service last week there have been about 45,000 operations in the NHS. That is not a Health Service in crisis. We are doing very well.

Surely the wise decision of the Royal College of Nursing not to sanction any strike action now deserves more than mere verbal support. Will the Prime Minister give it the assurance that it wants to hear, which is that the pay rise due to nurses will be funded in full by the Government, and that the price for that will not be exacted in any way from the National Health Service?

The Royal College of Nursing, for which we have the highest regard, is very much aware that the nurses were given an independent pay review body because the royal college had never gone on strike, as it cared too much for its duty to patients. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said. May I remind him that the Government of which he was a member cut the pay of nurses by 20 per cent. in real terms?

Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the late Aneurin Bevan, who said that he would stuff the mouths of the doctors with gold? As doctors have been well rewarded over the years, is it not right to expect them to make their contribution to improving efficiency and value for money in the National Health Service?

Everyone has a duty to obtain the maximum from the enormous amount of resources that the taxpayer pays to the Health Service, to operate with maximum efficiency and treat the maximum number of patients. Certainly, performance varies greatly between districts and hospitals, and it is with a view to examining that that we are obtaining some interesting figures and hoping to raise the standards of those who are not so good at using their resources to the standards of the best. Doctors will play a welcome part in that process.

May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the continuing difficulties of Chester district health authority, which treats thousands of my constituents? Does she know that on Christmas Eve two elderly patients were transferred between hospitals in a 4-tonne Bedford van because of a result of cuts? Does she know that that van was cold, dirty and smelly? Would the right hon. Lady like any member of her family to be transferred in such a shameful way, and does she realise that we do not think the Health Service is safe in her hands?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, those matters must be addressed to the local management, because it is responsible for the conditions. From 1979 up to March 1988—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to know the extra amount of money that the taxpayer has found for the Welsh Health Service —[Interruption.] Yes, it is the taxpayer who finds the money. Almost £500 million at current prices has been invested in the capital of the hospital and community health service in Wales, and expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales has risen by a third, after allowing for general inflation between 1979 and 1987. It is for the management to make the best of the opportunities that that money affords them.

Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that it is not a simple matter of more money— billions more have been spent on the NHS, and billions more are planned to be spent—but that it is also a case of efficiency, good management and evaluation between hospitals and practices?

We notice great differences between departments, hospitals and districts in how the money is spent and we are trying, as I said, to bring more of the best practices to those areas that have hitherto not been able to manage as well, although they may have had as many consultants and nurses. In general, the Health Service is expanding, it is treating many more patients, it is doing many more operations and it is treating more day and out-patients. The polls show that 80 per cent. of the enormous number of people who use the Health Service every year are highly satisfied with the treatment that they receive.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

Why is the Prime Minister demanding extra-special NATO meetings? Is it to bounce the Germans to accept battlefield nuclear weapons, which they do not want, or is it to tie President Reagan's hands in the coming peace talks? Is the Prime Minister using NATO to nuke the negotiations? Would not the money which she is determined to spend on new bombs be better spent on the Health Service?

No. If we did not have an effective defence there would be nothing like such a good Health Service, education service or standard of living. That has been mostly accepted by past Labour Governments. I understand that it does not seem to be accepted by the present Labour party.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deplorable action of the Birmingham council in trying to prevent the free extra tuition for gifted children in the area, which teachers are prepared to provide? Is it not a duty of a local education authority to ensure that there is good education to maximise the abilities of the children in the area?

I saw those reports this morning. I have not been able to find out whether they are accurate, but if they are I hope that everyone will condemn the action. The teachers are willing to give those especially gifted pupils extra tuition on Saturday morning. I think it is our duty to give every child a chance to develop its best talents and abilities and not to let the Socialist dogma of levelling down interfere with that process.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time out today to talk to the chairperson of the Tameside and Glossop health authority to discuss the proposed cuts in health care: 24 per cent. in orthopaedic beds, when there has been a 51 per cent. increase in the waiting list this year; 18 per cent. in surgical beds; 19 per cent. in medical beds; and the closure of a hospital? All this in an area that the Black report described as one of the worst in the country for health provision. Will she come with me to Tameside to meet the doctors, nurses and patients to gauge their opinion of these Government-imposed cuts?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have made inquiries from the Tameside and Glossop health authority. The number of patients that it has been treating since the reorganisation of 1982 is substantially up. In-patients are up by 34 per cent., and out-patients by 10 per cent. On capital building, there has been completed in the Tameside and Glossop health area a £2·6 million geriatric unit and there is under construction a £16·6 million phase 2 redevelopment of Tanieside general. It has received £110,800 extra from the waiting list fund for additional orthopaedic, gynaecological and ear, nose and throat patients, et cetera, et cetera.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the firm and proper stand that they are making on the question of extra finance for the National Health Service? Does she agree that there is no shortage of funds, but that those funds are being improperly used and that what we need is greater efficiency? Does she further agree that in the whole 40 years of the lifetime of the National Health Service it has never been properly managed? [Interruption.] Why is it that we have 12 chairmen employing a total of 870,000 people in the other nationalised industries —[Interruption.]—but have never had a chairman with full and effective power to look after the National Health Service.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Well over a million—nearly l¼ million—people work the National Health Service. It can be properly run only by effective management. It was in the lifetime of this Government that managers were appointed. It is not the Government who provide finance; it is the taxpayer. This year the average family of four provided to the Health Service £1,500 in taxes and charges. Next year the average family will provide in taxes and charges £1,600 to sustain the National Health Service. It has a right to expect that money to be effectively used.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

Despite the Prime Minister's pathological hatred of the Health Service, which she sees as a manifestation of Socialism to be destroyed, is she aware that on Wednesday 10 February Health Service workers and trade unionists in Liverpool will be engaging in a day of action to defend the Health Service? Will she now, at the eleventh hour, instruct the Chancellor, instead of giving tax handouts to the rich, to divert that money to the Health Service, or is she prepared to accept full responsibility in the event of a nationwide National Health Service dispute?

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would condemn those who take strike action at the expense of the patients—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister has the right to reply.

They are hitting out deliberately at the patients. It sounds as if the Labour party supports that strike and that industrial action.