To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unconvicted prisoners were remanded in police cells in England and Wales on 1 March; and if he will make a statement.

On 1 March there were 1,535 prisoners in police cells in England and Wales. Most of these would have been unconvicted prisoners.

Does the Home Secretary accept that conditions in police cells are far worse than those in remand prisons, and that it is barbaric for a civilised society to keep people in conditions that are often little better than those in which animals are kept in the zoo? When does he plan to introduce European minimum standards into our prisons?

The Government have made an unparalleled commitment to the prison service in terms of new building, modernising existing buildings up to standard and staffing. The position to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, which is certainly deeply unsatisfactory, is the result partly of industrial action in two large London prisons and partly of the increase in the prison population. That increase is caused not by an acceleration in the growth of crime—which has actually been slowing down—but by more cases going through the Crown courts, and the increasing severity of sentences passed by those courts.

Although I accept what my right hon. Friend has said about the Government's actions in the prison sector, is not the overcrowding of prison cells quite unacceptable? Is this not the moment to press ahead with the introduction of private contract prisons for remand prisoners?

My hon. and learned Friend knows that there is no magic in that suggestion. For example, it does not automatically deal with the planning permission problems, which are one of the bugbears of the prison building programme. My hon. and learned Friend also knows how constrained I am by existing law. I agree, however, that we cannot afford to neglect new ideas simply because they are new, and I shall bear that in mind in making the reply that I owe to the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Why do we find it necessary in this country to imprison more people for longer periods, whether in police cells or in ordinary prisons, than any other country in western Europe?

Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I send people to prison. The courts do so, after considering each case. I think that most hon. Members would welcome the fact that there are now more severe sentences for the more severe crimes of violence. In the case of lesser crimes, we want to build up ideas of punishment in the community in which the courts can have confidence.

In the light of the escape from court cells of prisoners on remand in Battersea, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that in future no prisoners on remand on charges of murder and crimes of violence will be held overnight—or, in particular, over weekends—in such cells under the tutelage of the police rather than of prison officers?

My hon. Friend rightly looked into the incident in his constituency, which is a classic example of the dangers that we run as a result of industrial action in certain London prisons. I entirely agree with him that it is highly undesirable for dangerous people to be lodged, even temporarily, in police cells, and we do our best to avoid that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to remove or deport any person from the United Kingdom who has been granted a judicial review of the circumstances of their case.

Those who obtain leave to apply for judicial review of a decision about their immigration status cannot expect automatically to be allowed to stay here until proceedings are completed.

Will the Minister reconsider that reply and give a clear undertaking that anyone who has sought to apply for a judicial review, or has been granted one, will not be removed or deported until those procedures have been exhausted? I urge him to reconsider, following the passing of the Immigration Bill, because it will impose important new restrictions. I believe that the implications of my request are most important, in terms of natural justice, for those who are faced with very great difficulties.

There is nothing new about this. In his statement to the House on 3 March 1987 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it plain that this would be our procedure in cases of those applying for asylum, for example. There may he cases in which the interests of maintaining proper immigration control will make early removal necessary. I am sure that the right approach is to deal with each case carefully according to its individual circumstances.

Are not applications for judicial review sometimes used by illegal immigrants simply as a delaying tactic? Will my hon. Friend tell the House the average time span between an application for judicial review and the eventual decision?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Leave to move for judicial review can be used simply as a means of delaying removal and thus of staying longer in this country. If a case is taken to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords, delays of four to five years may occur before removal takes place. Even in the case of an application to the Divisional court, the time taken to bring the case to a hearing can often be as long as two years.

Is the Minister aware that the Master of the Rolls in the Swati case indicated that premature removal of a person might deprive the courts of jurisdiction in such cases? Bearing in mind that the powers of Members of Parliament to make representations are under continual threat from the Government, and that the Home Secretary has said that not all cases will be referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants' Advisory Service referral system, what effective safeguards does the Minister intend to introduce to ensure justice for genuine visitors or asylum seekers who wish to appeal?

I have no doubt that there is genuine justice at the moment. We have a superstructure of appeals in this country which has little parallel in other Western countries. That superstructure is such that, through using the system, people are often able to abuse it and to stay for much longer in this country than is justified. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have not yet had cause to remove or deport anyone in the circumstances that I outlined in my original reply. It is correct to reserve the right to do so in future and to have regard to individual cases.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions have taken place since January concerning the release into the community of mentally disordered offenders.

Discussions are continuing between Home Office and Department of Health and Social Security officials, and within the DHSS, to seek ways of promoting good practice in the case of patients with chronic mental illness who have a history of offending. The objective is to ensure that such patients remain in contact with psychiatric services and do not find their way back into prison. The DHSS also intends, later this year, to lay before Parliament and to publish a code of practice for the guidance of people involved in the treatment of mentally disordered offenders.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the option of remand to a psychiatric unit for some convicted prisoners awaiting sentence and who have psychiatric problems is sometimes frustrated by the unwillingness of medical and other staff to accept individuals who have behavioural problems?

Yes. My hon. Friend's interest in this matter is well known and greatly to be welcomed. Officials of the Home Office and of the Department of Health and Social Security are proposing to undertake urgent talks to see whether it would be possible to persuade the regional health authorities to increase the number of beds available for the kind of persons to whom my hon. Friend has referred.

Will the Minister persuade the DHSS to slow down the programme of community care because of the problems that have been highlighted today of the release of people into the community? Will he tell the DHSS that many of us are very suspicious about the programme, which involves the closing of hospitals for the mentally handicapped and selling the sites for private development? It is important that this sort of attitude should be stopped and that plenty of money should be made available for local authorities to provide community care before any changes are made.

That question is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will, I think, welcome the Government's policy on this matter, which is, first, to try to divert from the prison system those who are better off in hospital, secondly, to try to provide better care for those in the prison system; and, thirdly, to provide better support for prisoners who are discharged back into the community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his remarks will be very welcome indeed? Is he further aware that many of those in our prisons at present are there because there is not a bed or a place for them in a psychiatric hospital? When someone is discharged from a psychiatric hospital in the first place and commits some minor offence in the community, the court often has no alternative but to send him to prison because of the lack of a place in a long-stay psychiatric hospital. Therefore, will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that his Department's views are drawn forcefully to the attention of the Department of Health and Social Security, which is carrying through an over-rapid closure of psychiatric hospitals, in some cases for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?

My hon. Friend has made a very important point, as one would expect of him. The Home Office recognises that in some areas there is a need for more beds of the kind described and intends to have talks urgently with the Department of Health and Social Security to see what can be done to persuade the regional health authorities to make such provision.

Before I call the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I remind him and others who may be called that the Birmingham bombings case remains sub judice. If questions are confined to later events concerning Dr. Skuse's retirement, they will be in order.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first staff report was made which referred to the deterioration in the performance of Dr. Frank Skuse.

Staff reports for 1981 and 1982 showed a pattern of deteriorating performance. Dr. Skuse was, therefore, removed from reporting cases to court in January 1983.

Why is the truth about Dr. Skuse being covered up? Is not the truth that we have another Dr. Clift on our hands? If so, would it not be better for Ministers to own up rather than our having to drag it out of them?

The hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theories are totally unfounded. Dr. Skuse was the subject of adverse reports from his line managers in 1981 and 1982. He was immediately removed in January 1983 from performing his duties and he retired voluntarily from the Civil Service in 1985. All Dr. Skuse's cases, dating back to 1966 — some 350 in number — were examined by the director of the Chorley forensic science laboratory in 1985 and 1986.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that it might be a fairer course to adopt if all the cases with which Dr. Skuse was associated before his retirement were looked into, in case there is any association between the activities in which he took part and those in which, for example, Dr. Clift took part, with the result that so many cases had to be reviewed?

The director of the Chorley forensic science laboratory has already looked at some 350 cases dating back to 1966. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman, or anyone else for that matter, has evidence of any possible miscarriage of justice based on forensic evidence placed before the courts by Dr. Skuse, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, of course, be prepared at any time to examine that evidence.

Is the Minister aware that while Dr. Skuse was giving evidence recently he was in telephone contact with the other principal Crown witness, Superintendent George Reade? Will he organise an investigation—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is sailing very close to the sub judice rule.

Is the Minister aware that this was in direct contravention of the instructions of the Lord Chief Justice?

I am not aware of the facts that the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, there is no evidence at all of which I know thus far of any collusive or collaborative arrangements between any of the private citizens to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. It is incumbent on him to take to the police and lay before them any evidence of alleged collusion or collaboration.

On the more general question arising from the Clift and Skuse cases, does the Minister agree that competent forensic scientists play a crucial role in the detection of criminals? Does he recognise that the salaries offered to forensic scientists by the Home Office are now so low that they are failing to attract the best forensic scientists out of industry and are actually encouraging Home Office scientists to go into the private sector?

There is no evidence whatever from the figures of excessive wastage from the forensic science service or of problems of recruitment. I can assure the House that all forensic science laboratories are most rigorously checked, and have been since 1979, by a system of trials, including blind trials, and we now have the very important scientific advisory committee under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Mason, Fellow of the Royal Society, to ensure that the highest possible scientific standards are maintained throughout.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many Metropolitan police officers above the rank of chief inspector are currently suspended on suspicion of misconduct.

I understand that one such officer is suspended.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the existing legislation concerning complaints about the conduct of senior officers calls into question the credibility of the Police Complaints Authority and the procedures agreed for it by the House? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to review the Police (Discipline) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1985 and section 83 and 84 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985 so that proper investigations can take place into allegations of misconduct by senior officers?

That was precisely the purpose of the sections to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. That Act, which is fairly recent on the statute book, established the Police Complaints Authority and gave it the role of supervising investigations as they take place rather than simply receiving reports afterwards. That is a great step forward, as I believe that the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind show.

Rather than calling for a report, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggests, which is a thinly disguised attempt to smear the police, will my right hon. Friend send a message to the Commissioneer saying that the police, wherever they are, are doing a magnificent job in defending democracy, despite the impediments placed upon them by the loony Left?

I entirely share and endorse my hon. Friend's message. I am glad to note that, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the influence of the loony Left in these matters seems to be diminishing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek an early meeting with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the effect on the policing of London's traffic of recent legislation on this subject.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet the Commissioner after Easter to discuss a range of London policing issues. These will include traffic matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Metropolitan police have written to me describing the effect of coach deregulation in London as horrendous? As ours is supposed to be the party of law and order, does my hon. Friend agree that we may find ourselves with a tarnished image unless we can satisfy the Metropolitan police that we are prepared to listen to the problems that they are suffering as a result of the legislation? As I am simply asking my hon. Friend to raise the matter, and as he has already agreed to meet the Commissioner, will he ensure that this item is on the agenda?

These are essentially matters for the Commissioner, but if the Commissioner wishes to discuss them with my right hon. Friend, he will be very willing to oblige. My hon. Friend is well known for his support for and interest in railways, but the railway service will improve only if there is an alternative. Coaches provide a useful and proper alternative.

What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Department of the Environment and at the Department of Transport, which between them are turning London into a dirty, pot-holed car park? In a recent parliamentary answer we were informed that at 31 December 1983 there were 1,789 traffic wardens, but that at 31 December 1987 there were only 1,527. Is the Minister aware that Government policy is reducing London to chaos in traffic terms and that the Metropolitan police and the Home Office are not doing enough to enforce traffic regulations?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not give greater support to Government policies on this matter. He will know of our policies on wheel clamping and the improvements that have taken place as a result of fixed penalties, registering parking tickets with fines, and so on. I am surprised that he did not take this opportunity to pay tribute to what we are doing.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer to my question and its inappropriateness from a Home Office Minister, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning providing television licences free of charge, or at lower prices, to pensioners and disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received regarding concessionary television licences for pensioners.

Since 1 January this year four petitions forwarded by hon. Members have been received, and 42 hon. Members and 72 members of the public have written seeking either free or concessionary television licences for pensioners and disabled people.

Is the Minister aware that that is a significant number of representations? Does he accept that pensioners and disabled people in residential care get the television licence for 5p under the 1978 regulations, whereas if they come out of residential or institutional care into the community they must pay a thousand times as much for their licences? In view of the Government's policy of trying to move people into the community and of bolstering community care, is that not a contradiction? Is it not time to look again, at least in part, at those regulations?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and the similar points that have been made to me by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are anomalies in the scheme and we are currently examining whether it would be appropriate to amend it.

Is the Minister aware that pensioners and many others in the community are bound to ask why, on Tuesday, the Chancellor could give substantial tax concessions to the super-rich while the Government deny free television licences to the elderly? Does the hon. Gentleman not know that most pensioners live on a small income and that television plays an important part in their lives? When will the Government end this mean-spirited squalid attitude towards our elderly?

I shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about the treatment of pensioners, given that the last labour Government cancelled their Christmas bonus two years out of five. After the Budget, the average single pensioner will be more than £68 a year better off and married pensioner couples will be £147 a year better off. That compares with an increase in the television licence of only £4·50—the first for three years. If we gave a free licence to all pensioners, many better-off pensioners would receive one at the expense of some non-pensioners who are on low incomes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now more than 12 months since the Melton borough council wrote asking him to sort out the problems of concessionary licences following the Kirklees judgment, and five and a half weeks since I brought a deputation to him on this matter? May we have a decision in weeks, rather than months — to use Lord Wilson's famous phrase?

I am aware of this. I told my hon. Friend when he brought the deputation to see me that there were anomalies in the scheme. That is why I told the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that we are considering ways of amending it.

I agree that the Labour party has nothing to be proud of on pensions, but does my hon. Friend accept that there are anomalies in expenditure on television licences in sheltered accommodation and the like? He will recall that there was recently a court case in Norfolk about this matter and that I have corresponded with him on behalf of the residents of the Felbrigg Green residents' home in Hellesdon in Norwich. Does he accept that this anomaly must be sorted out?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am aware of the case to which he refers. It is because of that and other cases that we are now considering why those in sheltered housing and accommodation provided by housing associations or councils should receive this substantial benefit while others in other types of sheltered housing in the private sector do not. That is why we are now considering ways of amending the scheme.

Although I welcome the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), on further consideration will he assure the House that the amendment will not take away that which has already been granted, instead of extending it to other disabled people?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to bide his time and exercise his patience, because if we are to reform a scheme that is clearly full of anomalies, we wish to come up with one that is fairer and more just.

Will my hon. Friend quantify the number of people who could have a licence at a reduced fee, how it would be paid for, what its cost would be and the effect of that cost being included in the licence fee?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Following the Kirklees judgment there is a considerable inclination for local authorities—one understands why—to try to change their existing sheltered accommodation housing schemes to bring them within the ambit of the scheme. The fact is that if all pensioners were able to obtain that benefit it would cost about £350 million per year, which would have the effect of increasing the licence fee by 50 per cent. for everyone else.

Before the Minister starts lecturing us about pensioners, does he accept that the problem would not arise for millions of pensioners if his Government had not snapped the link between rises in incomes and rises in pensions? Will he now think again about the answer that he gave about refusing to give an undertaking to the House that, as part of the review of the anomalies, he will not withdraw the treatment that those now living in sheltered accommodation receive? Can he explain to the House why it would be an anomaly to offer all pensioner households free television licences, irrespective of levels of income, when every state pensioner is entitled to the Christmas bonus?

The hon. Gentleman should not forget that during the five years when the Labour Government were in power pensioners' average annual incomes increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms — that was over the entire five-year period—whereas since we have been in office pensioners' average incomes have increased, after inflation, by the same figure—by 3 per cent. every year that we have been in Government. It is for that reason that one cannot accept lectures from the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent measures his Department has taken to combat crimes of violence.

We are further strengthening the police, we have put before Parliament proposals which will increase certain penalties, strengthen existing controls over the possession of guns, prohibit the sale of specified offensive weapons, and make it an offence to possess a knife in a public place without good reason. Our present crime prevention campaign is aimed at the 4 per cent of crime committed against the person, as well as the 96 per cent. committed against property.

Bearing in mind that crimes of violence in Cambridgeshire rose by almost 20 per cent. last year, will my right hon. Friend agree to reconsider his decisions regarding Cambridgeshire constabulary's request for extra police officers? Will he take steps to ensure that the Government's policies are co-ordinated across all Departments to try to encourage a sense of responsibility among parents and other people to try to stamp out violence where it begins?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's second point. He will have seen what we are doing about that. If we could reduce the crime figures simply by increasing the number of police, we would have solved the problem long ago, because the manpower available to the police has increased by 20,000 since 1979. No public service has had a bigger increase in resources. As my hon. Friend knows, we are in the middle of a further expansion of the police. We met the Cambridgeshire request, but only in part, last year. I am considering the latest application that I have received from that constabulary, alongside many other applications, before deciding on the increase for this year.

The Home Secretary will be aware that the Northumbria police have one of the highest rates of serious crime per policeman and that the chief constable identified a need for between 500 and 700 extra policemen. In fact, there has recently been a shotgun attack on a sub-post office in my constituency. Why does the Home Secretary not produce the money that is needed to employ those extra policemen, because if he does not, does that not demonstrate that his party's claim to be the party of law and order is bogus and just empty words? It is action that we want. Why will he not cough up the cash?

I cannot take that from the hon. Gentleman. I have given the figure for the immense increase both in resources and in numbers available to the police since the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was the Home Secretary. No other service has had a comparable increase. Now we are faced with a series of applications from different police authorities throughout the country. I test those in the light of the advice that I receive from the Inspectorate of Constabulary. It is partly a matter of population growth and partly a matter of the incidence of crime, but we must also ask whether a particular authority and force are making the best use of the resources which they already have, given that it now costs between £2,000 and £2,500 a week to keep one police officer permanently in post.

My right hon. Friend will know better than most of the increasing volume of under-age-drinking in public houses and the connection between that, the fracas and the consumption of police time and energy. Will he resist any suggestion that there should be further liberalisation of drinking hours until the problem of under-age-drinking has been tackled energetically and successfully?

My right hon. Friend is perfectly right to make that link. He will know that that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set up a committee under the chairmanship of the Lord President to consider this and other problems related to alcohol abuse. He will also know how, in the Licensing Bill, we have strengthened the precise proposals about under-age-drinking, with which he is concerned. He may be referring to a change made in that Bill in another place and there will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss that when the Bill returns to this place.

Would the Home Secretary be happy to have the crime rate that he inherited from me in 1979? Does he remember all those specious policy promises made in 1979, all of which have gone wrong?

I thought that I might flush the right hon. Gentleman out. As he knows, although violent crime has continued to increase, it has been increasing under this Government at about half the rate of increase over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. The main difference between the two sides is not that crime has increased under the one and not under the other, but that we have done something about it by way of a substantial strengthening of the police force.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the state has a duty to protect its citizens, that the public demand a country where women are safe to walk without fear of being molested and raped, where the elderly — [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must have his say.

—where the elderly can feel safe in their own homes and where children can play safely without fear of being abused and killed? Will my right hon. Friend state firmly that that is the objective of the Government?

Of course, my hon. Friend is entirely right. That has been our objective and is reflected in the proposals that we put before the House and in the way in which we spend taxpayers' money.

Will the Home Secretary turn his attention from the sensational to the serious problem? Will he accept that one of the best hopes for crime prevention is the proper rehabilitation of offenders? How does he think that this can happen when conditions in prisons are such that, for a whole weekend recently, only eight prison officers were left in charge of D wing at Wormwood Scrubs, where there were over 200 life prisoners?

The increase in the staffing of our prisons has been more rapid than the increase in the prison population. The hon. Lady is perfectly right to say that prisons have to be staffed as well as built. That is why I have obtained the resources from the Chancellor to increase the staffing in our prisons by 1,960 this year, of which only 600 are to replace normal wastage. I hope that the hon. Lady will also share with me the thought that, whatever the difficulties of the prison service and its members at present, it cannot be justified for the staff in two major London prisons, Pentonville and Wormwood Scrubs, to intensify those difficulties by refusing to accept prisoners.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in connection with the control of television broadcasting by satellite; and if he will make a statement.

A small number of representations on this subject have been received from hon. Members, members of the public, and interested organisations.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. We all welcome greater choice on our television screens, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern that the advent of satellite television could bring into our homes more pornography and violence? If my right hon. Friend shares that concern, what steps will he take to prevent it?

We are proposing to bring the broadcasters of domestic television under the Obscene Publications Act, from which they are at the moment exempt. But my hon. Friend is perfectly right about the possibilities of satellite broadcasting from abroad, and that is why we are engaged in negotiations in the Council of Europe on a draft treaty on that subject and also in discussions in Brussels on the possibility of a draft directive. We recognise the need that my hon. Friend has identified and are working to meet it.

Will the Home Secretary explain to the Prime Minister, who does not seem to understand these things, that the proliferation of television channels, far from increasing real choice for the viewer, can, by reducing programme standards, diminish real choice? Will he also make it plain to her that the increased commercialisation of broadcasting under the Government is a real threat to a public service broadcasting system that was once the envy of the world?

That is a distinctly old-fashioned view. There is no reason to suppose that, by offering the British people greater choice in the variety of their television, which is what we propose to do because it is now technically possible, that leads to a lowering of standards. It means that people have a greater choice to listen to and view what they want.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long elapsed between the discovery that the Home Office forensic scientist Dr. Alan Clift was unsatisfactory and the first quashing of a conviction based on Dr. Clift's evidence.

Dr. Clift was suspended from duty on 9 September 1977, and on 8 June 1978 three men had their joint convictions for robbery and burglary quashed.

Before I call the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) I say again that the case of Dr. Skuse is sub judice and supplementary questions should be confined to events in which Dr. Alan Clift as involved, not to other matters.

Are there not remarkable similarities between the cases of the forensic scientists Dr. Clift and Dr. Skuse? Were not both retired early by the Home Office for unsound forensic work and, in Dr. Clift's case, did not Home Office procrastination mean that many innocent people had to wait a long time before they were released? Does not the same apply to Dr. Skuse? Does not the fact that the Home Office is not clear about the errors in his work confirm that many unsound judgments have taken place in the courts?

The Home Office acted quickly after unsatisfactory reports about Dr. Clift's performance and he was retired on the date that I have just given. The hon. Gentleman really must recognise the improvements that have been made to Britain's forensic science service since 1979: first, by the introduction of continuous checking, including blind trials, by scientists from other areas; secondly, by a full review which was undertaken by scientists in 1986; and, thirdly, by the important oversight now given to the forensic science service under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Mason FRS.

Is my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) not correct when he says that there are now increasing and uncanny echoes of the case of Dr. Alan Clift when we consider Dr. Frank Skuse? Is the Minister aware that, after the departure of Dr. Clift, no fewer than 16 cases were taken to the Court of Appeal and the sentences were quashed? Would it not be better for the public, the police and those who may be the innocent victims of mistaken forensic evidence if the Minister were to order a public inquiry now into the cases dealt with by Dr. Skuse?

We should be concerned, not with echoes, but with evidence. If anyone has clear evidence of collusive or collaborative activity on the part of anyone, or of failures in a forensic scientist's judgment, that evidence or allegation should be taken to the police.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in negotiating new arrangements with other countries for the reciprocal confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

On 9 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I signed an agreement with the United States of America on the investigation and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking. We hope to conclude further such agreements this year. Part VI of the Criminal Justice Bill will, if it is passed, enable us to seek agreements on confiscation of the proceeds of other serious offences.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that that matter should be resolved urgently with our European neighbours, and can he assure the House that rapid progress will be made in that direction?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We believe it is wrong that a drug trafficking crook should be able to serve his sentence, comfortable in the knowledge that he is hanging on to the fruits of his crime. I am in touch with several European Governments and I hope that, when they have their domestic legislation in place, as we have ours, we might be able to have a European treaty which will bring this forward.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 March 1988.

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.

Will the Prime Minister, in the light of the welcome decision for a stay of execution for the Sharpeville Six for four weeks, use the intervening time to intervene direct with President Botha to impress upon him that that kind of action is intolerable? Will she indicate that she is willing, if necessary, to withdraw the British ambassador, or to re-open the case for sanctions, if the South African Administration go ahead with an action that shows them to be barbarians who show contempt for fundamental human rights?

No. Full and correct representations have been made by myself, by Chancellor Kohl and by President Reagan, which expressed our views extremely clearly and asked for clemency. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there was a further Supreme Court hearing in South Africa today and the Supreme Court there has ruled that there should be a stay of execution for one month while the appellants prepare an application for a retrial.

My constituency has just received £500,000 in derelict land grant to overcome the problem from the dereliction of mines in north-west Leicestershire. Will my right hon. Friend visit the Coalfield Communities Campaign exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall and reaffirm the Government's commitment to improving land which has been made derelict by the coalfields?

We are very anxious to see that derelict land is restored and that it is the subject of new enterprise and jobs. I will of course endeavour to visit that exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.

Today's reduction in interest rates is very welcome, but of course they need to go lower—just a little bit. In pursuit of what the Chancellor on Tuesday called the explicit role of "greater exchange rate stability", does the Prime Minister now understand that, when necessary, one can, and indeed must, "buck the market"?

My right hon. Friend, in a most excellent speech on Tuesday, which would have been even better had it been heard in quietness the entire way, made it perfectly clear that

"Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. With a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation."— [Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]

I am glad, and I am sure the country will be, to know that No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street are one big happy family again. I am also happy to welcome the right hon. Lady's reconversion to managed floating. Is not the real problem that while the Chancellor is now a manager, she is still a floater?

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not include the whole Cabinet in the big happy family?

Perhaps the right hon. Lady should discuss that further with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. On the matter of domestic stability, did not the right hon. Lady say a week last Tuesday that she was against a cut in interest rates because it

"would not be in the interests of inflation at the present time,"

I know precisely what I said last Tuesday. I said:

"The only way to deal with that is either to have excessive intervention … or to deal with the matter by interest rates, which would not be in the interests of inflation at the present time."—[Official Report, 8 March 1988; Vol.129, c. 184.]

Order. I hope the House will listen.

Had the right hon. Gentleman listened, he would have noted that on Tuesday we had an excellent Budget that demonstrated, with debt repayments of £3 billion, a strong and prudent fiscal position, the full strength of which was not known to the world until that time. Since then there has been a strengthening of exchange rates, which has tightened monetary conditions, all of which make possible the reduction of interest rates, but I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to understand.

rose—

Order. Mr. Norman Tebbit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the ill-informed attack on expenditure cuts and a give-away Budget, we are living in a period of the highest ever levels of public expenditure, the highest ever tax takes in terms of revenue, the lowest tax rates, the best ever record of inflation, falling interest rates and the repayment of debt instead of the increase of debt? Does she agree that that is the hallmark of a successful Chancellor, a successful Government and a successful economy?

I agree with my right hon. Friend, who has put it in his own inimitable way. No one could have put it better.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that my county, along with many others, is facing a programme of hospital closures, including five community hospitals, for reasons spelt out in the health authorities' consultative document a few weeks ago as clearly arising from under-funding by central Government? In view of the Budget surplus announced on Tuesday, of £3 billion, will the Government reconsider their funding policy towards the Health Service and stop the forced closure of such hospitals?

No. The increase in expenditure for the Health Service was announced as part of the £4·5 billion increase in programmes, and £1·1 billion is to go to the Health Service. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we shall consider the nurses' pay—when we know what is recommended—in the usual way, as we always have in the past.

Bearing in mind the importance of engineering activity and manufacturing industry to wealth creation in this country, which is fully recognised by Conservative Members, is my right hon. Friend surprised to learn that at the recent full-scale engineering debate in the House last Friday only one Opposition Member cared to turn out to listen and take part?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it plain to the House that that was the case. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained that the enormous success in manufacturing industry during the past year has greatly contributed to the increased prosperity of the country, the health of the whole economy and the standard of living of our people.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in my constituency have bought their own homes, and that obviously fits in with her Government's policies?

The hon. Gentleman must, of course, take that matter up with the National Coal Board, which I fully expect he has done. I notice that of the questions I am being asked today, not one dares to criticise the excellent Budget that we had earlier this week.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the latest unemployment figures show that the enterprise economy is continuing to provide prosperity and jobs, particularly for the long-term unemployed in regions and constituencies such as the north-west and Bury, North in particular? Will she confirm that the measures taken in the recent Budget will continue to improve that position further?

Yes. The latest employment figures show that unemployment is falling for the 19th month in succession. We have had a reduction of 400,000 since the election. The reductions in unemployment are among the greatest in the north-west, north-east and the west midlands. The Budget that my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday will continue the increasing success of enterprise, the increasing number of jobs and the rising standard of living of our people.

If it is right to support General Secretary Gorbachev in withdrawing Russian troops from Aghanistan when they were invited there by the Afghan Government, what has the Prime Minister to say to President Reagan for sending 3,000 troops to Honduras at the invitation of the Honduran Government?

The hon. Gentleman surprises me if he thinks that the Russian forces in Afghanistan were anything other than an occupying force. [HON. MEMBERS: "Honduras".] I will come to Honduras. I must say that we deplore the reported incursion by Nicaraguan forces into Honduras. At 11 o'clock on 16 March the Foreign Minister called a press conference to call world attention to the possibility of a Nicaraguan attack. President Azcona also called on his Central American opposite numbers to restrain the Sandinistas. It is only the Labour party that condemns America.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept that in my constituency in Croydon, which has a thriving business and commercial centre, this week's Budget has been greatly welcomed and that, in particular, the cuts in income tax and the increase in thresholds, which benefit everyone, not just the wealthy, will be seen as a real stimulus to our local economy?

Yes, the Budget contains something for everyone. [Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question.

All 25 million taxpayers benefit from the double indexation of allowances. Three quarters of the total cost in 1988–89 of income tax reductions is due to increased allowances and the reduction in the basic rate. Age allowance has been increased by twice the indexed amount so that it is now at its highest real level since its introduction in 1975–76.