To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently on remand; what proportion this represents of the total prison population; and what steps he has recently taken to advise magistrates on remand policy.

On 31 December 1987 the unsentenced prison population was about 10,480, not counting 474 mostly unsentenced prisoners held in police cells. That was just over 22 per cent. of the total prison population. My right hon. Friend cannot advise magistrates on their decisions on bail, which they take under the Bail Act 1976. He has called attention to the desirability of reducing the remand population and of providing information to magistrates in making decisions on bail.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the seriousness of the position, given the figures released yesterday showing the number of people held on remand in police cells. Is he aware that, on a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison two weeks ago by the all-party penal affairs group, we were told by an officer that one person has been remanded in custody on the charge of not possessing a bus ticket? What plans has my hon. Friend for a feasibility study within his Department to discuss tagging as an alternative to remanding in custody for non-convicted prisoners?

It is not for me to comment on an individual case. The interpretation of the 1976 Act is a matter for the bench or the judges involved. However, my hon. Friend has made a very interesting suggestion, which my right hon. Friend and I will consider.

Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that many prisoners held on remand who will eventually be found not guilty and released from prison are living in the most horrific conditions, with three in a cell, and having to slop out? Would it not be possible for the Home Secretary to examine the Scottish experience? In Scotland a prisoner must be brought to court within 110 days, or be released.

That is exactly what we are doing. My right hon. Friend has initiated some important experiments over the past year or so. We hope that by 1 April 1988 there will be limits on the length of time for which a prisoner cart be remanded, which will apply in the whole of Wales and in most of England. We also hope that within the next two years we shall have covered the whole of England.

In the light of the figures that my hon. Friend has given us, what consideration is the Department giving to the private building and management of remand prisons?

We are greatly constrained by the law in this respect, but we are very interested in the suggestion pur forward by my hon. Friend, and we are considering it.

What does the Minister think will happen when the poll tax legislation is introduced? Those who are found guilty will be able to obtain a refund for the time they were on remand, while those found innocent will have to pay the poll tax for the period during which they were in custody awaiting trial.

That question would probably be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers; and what was discussed.

I met the president and senior officers of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 25 January. We discussed the problems caused by the need to accommodate prisoners in police cells and also crime prevention initiatives.

Did my right hon. Friend convince chief police officers that calls for more manpower in the police, as in other public services, can be tolerated only in the context of greater efficiency and effectiveness and more modernisation and rationalisation?

Chief officers are well aware of that fact. They know that, although we are in the middle of a further stage of expansion of police numbers in England and Wales, which are already a record, the applications that police authorities put in will be judged on the criterion that my hon. Friend mentions—whether they are making the best use of existing resources, for example, by employing civilians in jobs which they can do at about half the cost of a police officer.

Nevertheless, is the Home Secretary aware that Northumbria's chief constable has carried out an exercise on his manpower needs and has determined that he needs an extra 529 police officers in order to police my constituency and those of my hon. Friends in Tyne and Wear? Does he also realise that if the chief constable uses the measure of serious offences per police officer, he needs an extra 800 police officers? Will the Home Secretary let me take a message back to the chief constable that he will agree to an extra manpower quota?

The problem in Northumbria is not so much the manpower levels but the precept which the House approved on 8 February. I have looked into the matter, because I have had various representations about it. The maximum precepts for the four joint police authorities concerned, which the House approved on 8 February, should enable them broadly to maintain their present level of service if they get their sums right and take wise decisions.

When my right hon. Friend was discussing manpower requirements with the chief police officers, did he urge them, as he has done in the past, to make greater use of special constables, particularly in rural areas, because they can play a useful part, particularly in street patrols, and so ease the burden on regular police officers?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That issue did not come up at the meeting, but we believe that possibility to be so important that we held a special conference, presided over by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, designed to bring home to chief officers and others concerned the fact that special constables can be a real asset, and, in many places, are still under-used.

When the Home Secretary next meets the chief constable of West Yorkshire, will he put it to him that there is a responsibility placed upon him to stop the leaks, from the West Yorkshire constabulary of smears — such as the one in the Yorkshire Post in an article written by Mr. Roger Cross—against Mr. Stalker by linking him to the death or murder of a Sergeant Speed? Will he tell him to stop the leaks because they are unfair on Mr. Stalker?

The hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture anybody on smears and insinuations. The chief constable of West Yorkshire has handled himself with high distinction and professional care throughout the whole business and I reject any insinuation directed either at him or the members of his force.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his response to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Session 1986–87, on contract, provision of prison services.

We hope to publish the response just before or shortly after the Easter recess.

In view of the high cost of keeping prisoners in police cells, will my hon. Friend give us some idea of his current thinking on keeping prisoners on remand while awaiting trial?

It is highly undesirable that remand prisoners should be kept in police cells and we are doing our best to prevent that happening. We are tackling the problem in a variety of ways, including bail hostels, the building of new prisons, speeding up the process of trial and reminding courts, where proper and appropriate, of the provisions of the Bail Act.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the increasingly feckless and irresponsible action of prison officers, the only way that they will learn what we expect from them is if we take away their right to hold prisoners in custody? Therefore, will he consider carefully the great opportunities that are open for the privatisation of certain prison services?

It is quite right that we should increase civilianisation where possible, and there are a number of functions ancillary to the prison service that can doubtless involve the private sector. There is already substantial private sector involvement in the construction of prisons. I would wish to postpone the wider issue of the management of the prisons until the response to the Select Committee has been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the proposal to end the right of intervention by hon. Members on immigration cases.

I have received a few representations from Opposition Members since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 16 November during the Second Reading debate on the Immigration Bill. We believe that many hon. Members find the present arrangements unsatisfactory. We are therefore seeking a new arrangement which would provide a better service to hon. Members and their constituents. I hope within some weeks to put forward proposals for change, on which right hon. and hon. Members will, of course, have the opportunity to comment.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he realise that the right of MPs to intervene in such cases represents the last appeal for many families wishing to be reunited in this country? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including me, have brought justice to individuals who have every right to enter this country.

Yes, of course I understand that, but it is precisely to provide a better service for MPs and thus for their constituents that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are examining the possibility of bringing new proposals to the House. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are two sides to the coin. In answer to his letter of 14 October we have twice asked for further particulars—on 6 November and 11 February—so that we can trace the case. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not replied.

When I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee I visited Lunar house and the ministerial correspondence unit at Harmondsworth. It became clear to me that, with more than 12,000 letters received by the Minister last year, he is being overburdened with unnecessary correspondence from hon. Members. Is it not inherent in hon. Members' responsibilities that they should not act merely as a filing tray or rubber stamp, but should consider carefully applications on immigration cases—particularly before they write to the Minister on routine matters?

I thank my hon. Friend and recognise his expertise in these matters. I would say seriously that if we can reduce the casework backlog at Lunar house it will help MPs, because they will have fewer representations from constituents wondering what has happened to their cases.

As there are 200,000 items of unopened mail at Lunar house, is it not undesirable that Members of Parliament should be made to deal with Croydon and face delays? Will the Minister tell the House that he will go out into the cities and provinces to speak to organisations that deal with immigration before he puts any proposals on this issue before the House?

The hon. Gentleman has already done enough damage to Lunar house by arriving 45 minutes late on Monday last week for a meeting there which he had asked me to arrange. No sooner had he left Lunar house than he was running to the national newspapers to tell them about difficulties there. I shall not anticipate the details of the proposals that we shall put before the House, the aim of which is to provide a better service for Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents of mine are most grateful to him for the able and considerate way in which he has responded to their problems and exercised his discretion?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff at Lunar house, who have to cope with literally hundred; of thousands of pieces of correspondence every year.

We look forward to the Minister's proposals for improving services to MPs. However, may I make it absolutely clear to him that MPs guard their rights jealously and that if those rights are weakened it will be immigrants who will lose, rather than MPs? Will the Minister be increasing the number of staff and the building space at Lunar house as part of the review to make sure that adequte services are provided to MPs?

I have many powers, but it is beyond me to increase the building space at Lunar house. The building is there and I cannot increase its size.

Is it not a fact that those rights, which are so jealously guarded by Opposition Members, have caused enormous problems because Opposition Members have intervened on the flimsiest possible evidence in many immigration cases?

That is obviously correct. Of course we shall preserve the rights of Members of Parliament, but we wish to arrive at a better procedure to enable everyone—Members of Parliament, Ministers and Lunar house—to concentrate on the really urgent, difficult and, at times, desperate cases.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his decision on the request by Salema Begum, daughter of Mr. Gura Miah, to remain with her parents in the United Kingdom.

I wrote to the hon. Member on 12 February to say that following the satisfactory conclusion of inquiries by the immigration service, I have decided to allow Salema Begum to remain in this country with her parents.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Although the case was lengthy—I think necessarily so—and the girl concerned and her family were put under considerable strain, I should, nevertheless, like to give my personal thanks to the Minister for exercising his discretion in that way and also put on record the thanks of the family.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I shall certainly pass on to the officials in my office and at Lunar house. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can persuade some of the Cassandras on his Benches to realise that the Home Secretary and I are trying genuinely to improve immigration procedures.

Although my hon. Friends and I welcome the Minister's descision on that specific case, is he aware that it was based on DNA testing? When will the Minister stop dragging his feet and start to introduce a DNA testing service, which we believe should be free of charge to the poorer in our society?

I am aware that the result was based on DNA testing, because I took the decision myself. As I said to the House two days ago in the debate on the Immigration Bill, we now have the report on DNA in draft. We are showing it to the experts involved and once we have their approval of the detail, I shall lay a copy in the Library of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present controls on the import of firearms into the United Kingdom.

In the light of our review on firearms controls the Firearms (Amendment) Bill contains a provision whereby visitors to Great Britain will be required to obtain a permit if they wish to import a firearm or shotgun.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that we have harsher controls for the exporting of personal firearms, for use in international shooting competitions, for example, than we have for the importation of firearms? Should it not be the other way round?

We thought that there were shortcomings in the legislation regarding the importation of firearms into this country and we have tried to cure those shortcomings by the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

The Minister will be aware of my personal anxiety about the Common Market Council directive, approved in September last year, which affords member states — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am refreshing my memory — which affords member states the requisite guarantees for them to agree to abstain from police checks for the possession of weapons when internal Community frontiers are crossed. The Minister will also be aware of my concern that the Council's definition of firearms encompasses portable grenade launchers, portable rocket launchers and flamethrowers. Will he give the House an assurance today that Her Majesty's Government will not support that kind of directive in any way?

The Government's view is that the proposed directive is misconcieved, not amenable to drafting improvements, and needs to be withdrawn or rejected.

Is my hon. Friend aware that police man hours required to administer the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will double in the first year of its administration to 1,550,000? Will he ensure that if the Bill reaches the statute book in the way proposed resources will be made available to the police to administer its implications?

I am afraid that there is no sound basis for supporting the calculation of hours put forward by my hon. Friend. It is undoubtedly true that our proposals are broadly welcomed by the police service and by the House.

Is the Minister satisfied that the proposals to which he has referred will not constitute an obstacle to those who wish to import weapons into the United Kingdom for legitimate purposes such as target shooting and game shooting?

The hon. and learned Member makes a sound point. It is important that any checks that we impose should take account of legitimate sporting and commercial interests. In my judgment, clause 12 is correct in both regards.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern about the importation and sale of stun guns? Can he say whether any action by the Home Office is envisaged?

The Bill will make a stun gun a prohibited weapon to which section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 applies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the scientists sacked or compulsorily retired from the Home Office laboratory in Chorley since 1979, giving the dates in each case.

No scientific staff at the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Chorley have been dismissed or compulsorily retired since 1979.

Will the Minister investigate the allegations made in the House this week during an Adjournment debate that Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade, two of the principal witnesses in the Birmingham pub bombing appeal, conspired together during that appeal and even met in Mr. Reade's house?

Some extraordinary and bizarre allegations were made during that Adjournment debate earlier this week. The hon. Gentleman has referred to some of them. There were also attacks on individual named members of the judiciary, and even a most extraordinary suggestion that somehow I have been involved in covering up for the police and the judiciary for many years.

Is it not a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege for Opposition Members to accuse forensic scientists and those who serve the state of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, when such accusations have no justification whatsoever?

Those who come to the Chamber and make unfounded allegations should follow the sensible old rule of coughing up or shutting up. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

Dr. Skuse is one of my constituents, and a near neighbour of mine. I am also concerned about the allegations in relation to the evidence at the trial and the subsequent allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is an honourable man who has taken a great deal of care to investigate the allegations

Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking questions, but he is taking a rather long time.

Briefly in reply, I set out the circumstances surrounding Dr. Skuse's early retirement on the grounds of limited efficiency in my response to the Adjournment debate on Tuesday. Otherwise, I think that the extraordinary tissue of allegations and suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) should not be considered worthy of the attention of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although any hon. Member rightly should pursue issues in the House, using character assassination to pursue an issue is immoral, improper and unjust? Dr. Skuse, like anyone else, deserves justice. Just because some people rightly have been convicted after a 28-day appeal, for any hon. Member to try to use Dr. Skuse to get the case reopened is absolutely improper and dishonourable.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Court of Appeal had before it all the evidence. Indeed, Dr. Skuse was a witness before it and gave evidence for some three and a half days. I believe that some Opposition Members should be extremely cautious before they make totally unfounded allegations.

Is the Minister aware that on 29 November, while the appeal was being heard, Doctor Skuse was to be found at the home of another principal crown witness, Superintendent George Reade at Rugeley, Staffordshire? Dr. Skuse was 80 miles away from his home in Wigan. What does the Minister think that they were discussing if it was not the trial? Was it a football match or the weather?

The hon. Gentleman is becoming more and more bizarre. He made those allegations in his speech during the Adjournment debate on Tuesday night. It has been a consistent theme of the hon. Gentleman to make allegations without evidence and without foundation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost to Her Majesty's Government, including staff overtime and damage to buildings, of riots in Her Majesty's prisons over the last three years.

The total estimated cost of the damage that occurred during the riots in April and May 1986 was about £5·5 million. Other serious disturbances by inmates in 1986 and 1987—at Risley, Wymott and Dartmoor—resulted in damage of about £45,400. Information on staff overtime costs arising as a result of serious disturbances is not readily available.

I think that it is regrettable that the Government do not know the total cost of the prison riots. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the known cost is a significant sum and is a waste of taxpayers' money that could be better spent on the Health Service? In future, will my right hon. Friend get tougher at an earlier stage with rioters, in order to limit damage? Is he aware that when prison rioters got on the roof of the prison at Hull — they did more than £1 million worth of damage—the water hoses were not used because, in the words of the governor, they were frightened about injuring the prisoners. Surely prisoners who take such action should be aware that if they do not come down when instructed they face injury.

I believe that my hon. Friend is a hit hard in criticising me for not giving him the figure that I have just given. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that prisoners who escape, attempt to escape or riot should be subject to disciplinary action. As regards the money, I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that prisons should be kept secure and that prison staff need to work in decent conditions. Any idea that, in general, prisoners are kept in a cossetted or comfortable state is well astray.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is nothing short of a national scandal that A and I) wings of Parkhurst prison are still unoccupied since the riot of 1979?

My hon. Friend and I discussed this matter when I visited the prison and, as he keeps in close touch with this matter, he will know that plans are going ahead to bring that area back into occupation, and he will know why it has taken so long.

Does the Home Secretary take seriously the letter that was sent to him from the Prison Officers Association warning that Brixton will burn to the ground and that prison officers will be seriously injured or even killed unless he takes urgent action to improve the staffing levels? What does he intend to do about that unprecedented situation?

I take seriously the representations from Brixton and we are in close touch with the local branches of the POA in several London prisons and nationally on that matter. The short answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I propose to recruit 1,360 additional prison officers in 1988–89.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an exact date for the publication of his proposals to change the offical secrets legislation.

I hope to lay a White Paper before Parliament in June. At this stage I can give no more precise commitment.

I am grateful for that answer. As the proposals made in the other place by Lord Bethell fit in very well with that putative timetable, will my right hon. Friend please give maximum encouragement to those proposals, bearing in mind that they reflect some of the utterances and expressions of opinion made some weeks ago in this House on the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)?

I note the noble Lord's intentions. The management of business in the other place is, happily, not something for me, but I am sure the noble Lord will also notice the timetable that my hon. Friend has elicited from me.

Although this subject is liable to be a political minefield in view of the legislation that my right hon. Friend is thinking of, will he comfort himself with the thought that this subject is not of great interest to the man in the street, and is of interest mainly to media people and journalists?

My hon. Friend has made that point effectively before, as he has done today. There is much truth in what he says.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has revised the guidance given by his Department about concessionary television licences for pensioners in the light of recent litigation.

Revised guidelines about the application of the regulations governing the concessionary licence scheme were issued to the national television licence records office in April 1987.

Does the Minister accept that in the light of recent court decisions it is now open to local authorities, by providing appropriate services to tenants, to ensure that many more elderly people can have concessionary television licences than do now? Will he place any obstacle in the way of that being done?

I stress to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only a matter of appropriate services; nor is it only a matter of a communal facility having to be provided. The accommodation must also be part of a group and specially provided for. Since the Kirklees judgment we have had a great many applications for concessionary licences, and they are being carefully considered in the light of that judgment.

I thank my hon. Friend for helpfully receiving a deputation on this matter. Is he aware that hundreds of my constituents who are pensioners have been waiting 11 months for his departmental decision on the issue? Will he please give that decision early priority?

I am aware of that. I was pleased to receive the deputation brought by my hon. Friend the other day. There have been a great many applications since the Kirklees judgment, and we shall proceed to a decision on them as quickly as we can.

Does the Minister not recognise that pensioners do not want revised guidelines? They want an urgent Government announcement that all pensioner households will receive free television. Does he recognise that the Government's record on pensions is scandalous and that many pensioners are being robbed of £8 to which they are fully entitled? A decision by the Government to give free television to pensioner households is long overdue.

The hon. Gentleman should sometimes think before he speaks. He should realise that if every pensioner received a free television licence, it would cost about £360 million a year. That means that the cost of everyone else's television licence would go up by about 50 per cent. Those who are on low incomes, but are not pensioners, would also have to pay that higher price.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about blanket subsidies, but is he aware of the sense of unfairness felt by many people living in private sheltered accommodation, who believe that those who live in council-run accommodation are a privlieged group? Will he bear that in mind in future?

I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said. The difficulty is that the present scheme is unsatisfactory and gives rise to serious anomalies. Improvements were made to it in 1984, but we have not yet found a way of further improving the scheme without either unacceptably increasing costs or producing more anomalies.

Will the Minister give an assurance that no action will be taken against pensioners who do not have television licences now and believe that they fall into the category of exemption because of the grey area that has arisen since the Kirklees judgment? Is he aware that many pensioners in the Kirklees area do not have television licences because they think they are covered by the exemption scheme? If the Minister makes the ruling retrospective, they could be prosecuted in the interim for not having a television licence.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make the position clear. Until the concessionary licence is granted a full licence is required by law. If a concessionary licence is granted, it will be back-dated to the date of application. Anyone eligible who bought a full licence after that date can obtain a full refund, and no prosecution will be initiated against anyone for whom a concessionary licence application has been made while it is outstanding.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the effects of the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on the fight against crime; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a letter from the Conservative Association in my hon. Friend's constituency suggesting that the Act has been a handicap to police efforts to deter crime. I am not persuaded that that has been the case, but I have recently set in hand a review of the codes of practice made under the Act and I shall be consulting a wide range of interested bodies, including the police.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Act is helping to streamline court procedures by eliminating vexatious claims that the police have not been following proper procedures?

It is certainly bringing down substantially the amount of vexatious argument about what happened in a police station. If, as we plan, tape recording can be implemented effectively throughout England and Wales by 1991, it will be an enormous step forward in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestions made by the Labour party that the Act was unworkable and unfair have proved completely groundless? Will he be encouraged by the fact that, according to a report published today, juvenile crime has decreased by 23·3 per cent. over the past 10 years? Will he continue to encourage the police in the practice of cautioning?

My hon. Friend is quite right in his latter point and I agree entirely with him. If we had listened to the proposals and accepted the amendments of the Labour party, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would have been infinitely more cumbersome and paper-ridden.

Has the Secretary of State learnt anything from the visit of the Minister of State to France? Is he aware that that country has demonstrated that it is possible to turn down the crime rate if one acknowledges that crime rates are altered not by the number of police but by the conditions under which people live? His constant denials of the link between unemployment, living conditions and crime have been shown to be untrue in France.

My hon. Friend came back from France with some useful ideas about French crime prevention proposals. We have plenty of initiatives for crime prevention up our sleeves for the spring, and as they unfold I hope that they will have the hon. Gentleman's support.

Will my right hon. Friend note the letter that I sent to him recently from the chief constable of Staffordshire in the wake of the Bingley Hall riots? Will he consider whether the code of practice — which is currently associated with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and designed to ensure that organised violence can be sought out and eliminated before it takes place—should be incorporated in the Act?

I shall certainly take Staffordshire's suggestion into account when we look at the code of practice, but I have no plans to amend the Act at present. Staffordshire has taken notable initiatives, through the Staffordshire police, to try to keep young people in particular out of crime during the summer holidays.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the conduct of the police in the area around the Houses of Parliament and Whitehall during the demonstration in support of the National Health Service on 3 February; and if he will make a statement.

I understand from the commissioner that the actions of the police on 3 February were taken in pursuance of his general duty to ensure the free passage of the highway and the requirement placed on him by sessional orders to keep the streets leading to the House free and open.

Will the Minister investigate reports that people who took part in what had been a fairly peaceful demonstration, including some young nurses in uniform, were jostled, punched and kicked by policemen, some of whom behaved like animals? Does the Minister realise that nurses and Health Service workers would not have had to take to the streets if the Government had given them the same generous pay increases as they have handed out to the police in recent years?

That question is typical of the Labour party in that it is a discreditable one. No complaint has been made against the police. It is interesting to note that only four were persons arrested, and of them only one was a nurse. What is intolerable is that the Labour party assists in the passing of these sessional orders and then complains when they are operated in a fair and reasonable manner.

When my hon. Friend meets the Commissioner of Police, will he convey our thanks for the splendid job that the police carry out every time the House sits, for the protection that we receive from them, for their courtesy and for the fact that they handle all the demonstrations that take place with the kindness and diligence that we expect of them?

When I next see the commissioner, I shall make sure that he is aware of my hon. Friend's point. One of the things that I expect to hear from him is his deep disquiet at the unfounded attacks on the police service from the Labour Benches.

Although the Minister appears to be satisfied in respect of the National Health Service demonstration, is he satisfied with what happened to the Christians—priests, nuns, laity and monks—who went to the Ministry of Defence yesterday and were arrested because they took the decision—[Interruption.]

Order. This question is about the sessional order referring to this House.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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.

Although I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask her whether she will take time today, in her busy schedule, to consider the sixth report of the Home Affairs Select Committee relating to criminal evidence, which was compiled in 1982 under the chairmanship of Lord Eden and comprised a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House? One of the Committee's recommendations was that a committee should be established to assist and advise the Home Secretary in cases of appeal. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider whether that is right. It is important to note that the House has not yet had a chance to discuss the recommendation. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

My answer to my hon. Friend has to be in the negative, because the Government's response to that recommendation was set out in the Government reply to the sixth report from the Home Affairs Select Committee, Session 1981–82. The reply concluded that, as a matter of principle, priority should be given to improving and enhancing the part played by the courts in considering alleged miscarriages of justice. I have nothing further to add to that reply.

Did the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services to Young Conservatives last weekend represent official Government policy?

Yes. I went all the way through the speech. It was excellent.

Having been all the way through the speech, the Prime Minister will be able to confirm the Secretary of State's view on the resources that he was allocated for spending on the Health Service this year. His view was:

"I didn't think that was enough".

The right hon. Gentleman has left out a part of the sentence. It read:

"I didn't think that was enough, in terms of the changes … all of us would like to see so far as the primary health care service is concerned."

Let us continue our textual analysis of the Secretary of State's speech. He went on to tell the Young Conservatives — I read the sentence in its entirety:

"I wanted to see additional resources above and beyond those that I've secured."

That sentence referred to primary health care services. My right hon. Friend went on to say that he was going to get those extra resources from charges which have already been before the House, of which in fact the right hon. Gentleman disapproved. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question on a false supposition, because he did not read the speech. He disapproves of the place from which the extra resources are coming. My right hon. Friend went on to say:

"It was … a Labour Government first started the introduction of charges in the field of optometry in spectacles and dental care, in league with all of these areas."

In view of the Labour party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and to the British independent nuclear deterrent, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has abrogated—

Order. The hon. Member's question must refer to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British independent nuclear deterrent is part of the Government's responsibility, which has been thrown away by the Labour party?

Yes. The British independent nuclear deterrent is vital to the security of our people today and to generations in the future. The nuclear deterrent is a fundamental part of NATO's strategy. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been a tremendous help to police both here and in Northern Ireland. Those who really wish to fight terrorism should support that Act.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread fury at the pig's breakfast her Government have made of the ex gratia payments for the retail prices index error? Tens of thousands of war pensioners, the disabled, invalids and other pensioners have been cheated by the chaos. Nearly one in 10 of all those with combined pension books have lost out and many of them have been advised by Government offices to combine their books. Will the Prime Minister give us a guarantee today that all those who have been short-changed by the system will be compensated?

As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, there was no legal requirement on the Government to make those payments. We, however, calculated that the total estimated social security underspend was £109 million, of which special payments of over £101 million have been made to over 12 million people. — [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would listen. A very small group have been under-compensated, out of 12 million.—[Interruption.] Out of 12 million, 175,000 have been under-compensated, and the under-compensation is £1 million. Over 2 million people who have lost nothing by the error, but nevertheless receive an £8 special payment, which of course comes to £16 million. [Interruption.] It was necessary to do it that way in order to get the payments there very quickly, so the under-compensation has been about £1 million and the over-compensation has been about £16 million for 2 million people. Nevertheless, that is not the whole story. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself in patience, if he has any to contain himself with. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available a further £7 million, which is to go to voluntary charities specifically to help people in low income groups. Therefore, the under-compensation has been about £1 million against the extra £7 million available.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider whether there should be a review of the compensation paid in relation to major public works developments such as roads and airports? Is she aware that people who may not have any land taken suffer a substantial loss of amenity and loss of value of property simply because their houses are near to where the development is taking place?

We have no major review of that kind planned. There have been times when an airports authority or an air company has purchased property which is affected. If there are any cases, I suggest that my hon. Friend pursues that course of action.

As the person ultimately responsible for national security, will the Prime Minister tell us whether she was consulted by the Attorney-General before he made his statement of 25 January on the Stalker-Sampson report, and whether she approves of the principle which he enunciated that day, that the interests of national security transcend the rule of law even in cases where there is loss of human life?

I do not accept the description which the hon. Gentleman put in his question as accurate in any way. The Attorney-General made a full and complete statement in discharge of his duties. I have nothing to add to that statement. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in this country prosecution is not a matter for Government; it is for the prosecuting authority.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the simulated hysteria on the Opposition Benches about the National Health Service? Will she join me in congratulating West Dorset health authority, which is removing more than 50 of the 152 administrative posts so as to be able to apply the resources to greater patient care? Will my right hon. Friend join me in recommending other health authorities to follow that example?

I know that a number of health authorities have done precisely the same as the West Dorset authority. Indeed, there has been much more effective use of resources through cutting out waste. It normally amounts to about £150 million a year, which goes straight back into improved patient care and is one of the reasons why the number of patients who have been treated in the Health Service has gone up steadily. I understand that there is still a good deal more in terms of efficient use of resources to be got out of the Health Service, and I expect that the number of patients treated, the number of operations performed and the satisfaction with the Health Service will continue to rise.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

Can the right hon. Lady explain carefully to the House how she can justify the policies of her Government which allow massive tax breaks to the already rich to plant trees and destroy the environment in Scot land when she will not fund an adequate pay rise for low-paid nurses?

Nurses have had an increase of 30 per cent. in real terms under this Government, contrasting with the cut of 20 per cent. which they suffered under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of taxation. That is not yet for me. It is to be discussed in the Budget. I notice that the Labour party was singing a very different story in 1986, before the election, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said:

"An election victory would be followed by a massive increase in taxation, as it was in 1979."—[Official Report, 17 December 1986; Vol. 107, C. 1253].

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the latest unemployment figures which show, once again, that seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen, and does she agree with me that these figures, together with the White Paper on training that was published earlier this week, show that the Government's economic policy is working and that prospects for lower unemployment in the future are excellent?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Today's figures are more good news and show that unemployment has fallen for 18 months running, and by over 500,000 in the past year, that all regions have shared in that fall and that employment is still rising, with more than 1,500,000 more jobs since 1983.