To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were held in 1988 on babies born alive following abortions; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware of any. Such information is not collected centrally.

Will my hon. Friend give his reasons for failing to hold an inquest into the death of the Carlisle baby, who, in July 1987, was delivered alive in the city general hospital Carlisle after 21 weeks' gestation hut died, having struggled for three hours to live?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. My right hon. Friend felt that there was no compelling reason to hold an inquest. In reaching that conclusion he had a number of considerations in mind—that this was a bona fide and lawful abortion; the reasons for carrying it out were compelling; the foetus was incapable of surviving; and it was desirable to spare the mother further distress.

How can the Minister say that, when the ground given for abortion was disability—a non-recurring possible skin complaint that was not life-threatening? Did he take into account the absence of resuscitation equipment in the hospital when the abortion took place? How does that square with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which says that a child may not be aborted if it is capable of being born alive? This child struggled for life for three hours before being put in a black sack and incinerated.

It is desirable to avoid emotive language in these painful subjects. Ministers gave the case careful consideration and came to the conclusions that I have outlined. I believe that they were right.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1976 the Select Committee on Abortion recommended that no abortion should be carried out on a baby of 20 weeks' or more gestation unless resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available? Is he further aware that resuscitation equipment was available in the hospital for the Carlisle baby but that it was not used because it was in another building? Is that not of itself sufficient reason to order an inquest? Can an inquest be ordered to show the nation that regulations passed by the Department of Health and accepted by the hospital service were flagrantly broken? Is it not high time that we ended disgraceful happenings of this kind?

I am conscious of the strong feelings that a number of hon. Members most particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—have on this subject. This matter was given careful consideration by Ministers, including my right hon. Friend—

The law was broken.

The conclusion at which we arrived was the one that I have outlined to the House, and it would be wrong to depart from it now.

On what ground did the Home Secretary decide that there should be no inquest? This abortion contravened the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, section 1(1)(b) of the Abortion Act and, against all requirements laid down by the Department of Health, no resuscitation equipment was available for this child. Given all those facts, surely this case should be investigated.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has expressed most clearly. I do not accept that there was a breach of the 1929 Act. The Ministers who examined the case did so carefully, realising that many hon. Members felt strongly about it, but the conclusion that I have outlined to the House is the right conclusion.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any action to increase the penalties available to the courts for the offence of cruelty to children.

The maximum penalty for cruelty to children has already been increased from two to 10 years' imprisonment. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides this higher penalty for offences committed since 29 September 1988.

I welcome the measure, especially in view of recently reported appalling cases of child cruelty. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case, as put forward by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, for intensifying prison treatment of people convicted of offences against children, to ensure that such offences do not occur when they leave prison?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be interested to learn that much of that work already goes on at Her Majesty's prison Grendon Underwood.

What action does the Minister intend to take against the Secretary of State for Social Security for the crimes committed against the children of this country by freezing child benefit for two years in succession?

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend willing to reconsider the matter? Will he consider drawing a distinction between child cruelty within families, when deterrence is not necessarily the most significant factor, and individuals and organisations who systematically and deliberately organise child abuse? Will he take stronger action against groups such as the Children of God and practitioners of Satanism for whom the most severe punishment is not necessarily adequate?

I know about my hon. Friend's strong feelings about these issues. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 tightens the law in favour of children in several ways, not only that which I have already described but, for example, by making the possession of indecent photographs a criminal offence. It also introduces other provisions such as an appeal by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General against allegedly over-lenient sentences. It represents a formidable package which has received an all-party welcome.

Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more varied penalties for cruelty to children? What does he think of the NSPCC's recent suggestion that a child should not be punished for the evil that a parent might have done to it? Does he agree that there is a case for removing child abusers, rather than innocent children, from the home?

No one wants any child to be punished in any way because of the faults of anyone else.

In the light of the recent case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), when will my hon. Friend bring into operation those clauses in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 dealing with child pornography and allowing children to give evidence by way of video link?

We have already introduced a provision concerning the possession of indecent photographs. That has been an offence since 28 September this year. On 5 January 1989 we shall give powers to the courts to receive video evidence by children.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to respond to the second report from Lord Gifford QC into the circumstances that led to the convictions of Mr. Silcott, Mr. Braithwaite and Mr. Raghip arising out of the incidents at Broadwater farm in 1985; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.

Lord Gifford has written to me enclosing a copy of his report. This was an entirely unofficial exercise in which, with my right hon. Friend's approval, the Metropolitan police declined to take part.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the evidence on which the Broadwater farm three were convicted and on which their petition for leave to appeal was rejected, which is of confessions only, was obtained without undue duress, without unfair treatment, and under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Have inquiries been made into the evidence that was obtained? If inquiries have not been made, will he make them now?

The three men named in the question were convicted after a jury trial. That conviction was upheld in the Court of Appeal earlier this week. In those circumstances, I believe that most fair-minded people should accept that those men are guilty as charged.

Will my hon. Friend join in congratulating those Metropolitan police officers who were recently awarded bravery awards for their heroic conduct during the Broadwater farm riots in 1987?

The Metropolitan police behaved with great gallantry, and they will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his words.

I do not contest the idea that legal procedures, as now constituted, were scrupulously followed in this case, but will the Under-Secretary comment on the increasing disquiet that underlies this case, of men and women being convicted on confessions alone? There is growing concern that that should not be the sole reason for a conviction. Is the Department prepared to study that matter?

These matters are for the courts. The right hon. Gentleman would do his reputation, and that of his party, considerable good if he stood by the verdict of a jury when it is upheld in the Court of Appeal. Simply to try to go around the back door in such cases is not respectable.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence for child destruction under the Infant Life (Preservation Act) 1929 for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

There has been only one conviction for child destruction in the past 10 years. The sentence was life imprisonment.

Following that answer, does my hon. Friend recognise that many hon. Members are not satisfied that the intent of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is being complied with? Does he further recognise that—with the advances in medical science meaning that the stage at which a baby is capable of being born alive is reducing all the time—the effectiveness of this Act needs to be reviewed urgently?

My hon. Friend puts his point very firmly. The 1929 Act provides that at 28 weeks of development, there is a rebuttable presumption that the foetus is capable of survival. There is quite clear and compelling evidence that the rebuttable presumption should arise not at 28 weeks, but at 24 weeks, but the House may feel that this matter could be best tackled by private Member's legislation.

While there has been one case of child destruction in the past 10 years, is it not a fact that, before we had the Abortion Act 1967, there was an average of 65 mother destructions each year? Women went to back-street abortionists, ran into trouble, had to be rushed into hospital and subsequently died. Will the Under-Secretary compare those figures with those of child destruction?

I certainly shall.

Is there not something wrong with a society where healthy human life can be destroyed purely because it is socially inconvenient? Is that not happening increasingly these days? Is it not against the law and is it not time that the Government did something about it?

The 1929 Act is quite plain in its effect. The question really is about where the rebuttable presumption should arise. At the moment it arises at 28 weeks. There is good reason to suppose that it should arise at 24 weeks. It is a matter that causes the House much distress and would probably be best dealt with by private Member's legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to increase the level of service provided to police forces by the forensic science service.

We plan to recruit 18 additional scientific staff to the Home Office forensic science service in 1989–90 and a further 10 additional staff in 1990–91.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in 1980 there were 445 staff in the forensic science service, yet last year there were only 437, despite the fact that reported crime in that period went through the roof? Are not many suspected criminals getting away with their crimes because the service cannot cope? Did not an expert witness to the Select Committee on Home Affairs say that morale in the service is bloody awful? When will the Secretary of State do something about it and put money and manpower into the service?

Investment in the forensic science service has increased from 0·3 million to £13·75 million during our term of office. That is a real increase of 21 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's figures for staffing are slightly wrong. Staffing levels are broadly constant, but the workload—the number of exhibits going to the service—has increased substantially. I await the Select Committee's conclusion on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a long period of discussion and consultation in the service about grading and complementing. The new structure has been introduced and promotions are being made to the new grades. Morale should improve because the period of uncertainty is over.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the longstanding anxiety that the forensic science service is too closely intertwined with the police? Does he accept that what is required is an improved independent forensic science service that is available equally to the police and to defendants?

I am aware of that argument, but I do not regard it as a priority. Inevitably, the forensic science service and the police are intertwined. They should be. My priority is to ensure that the service is organised in such a way as to give proper priority to those crimes which the police believe to be most important.

May I give a modest welcome to the increase in staffing in the forensic science service? None the less,. will the Home Secretary confirm that last year the management consultants, Touche Ross, recommended an immediate increase in staff of 27 to deal with the extra workload and with the introduction of DNA genetic fingerprinting? Given that the new staff will not he in place until next year or even the following year, as well as the fast rise in violent and sex crimes, the Home Secretary's complacency is astounding.

The hon. Gentleman must have drafted his supplementary question before he heard my answer to the main question. There have been many reports and discussions in Committees. The forensic science service is just emerging from the period of discussion. Anyone who visits the six laboratories—no doubt the hon. Gentleman has visited at least one of them—will be impressed by the way in which they are grappling with DNA and the workload and trying to perform to the best of their ability. I am anxious that the structure and gradings should be such that they can do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is considering to reduce violence in rural areas.

We have strengthened the police, tightened the law on under-age drinking, reminded the justices of their powers to prevent disorderly drinking, encouraged the swift hearing of cases of this kind and made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason. We are preparing further guidance to local services.

My right hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the relative increase in violent crime in rural areas as opposed to their metropolitan counterparts. Will he consider taking action, or tell the House what action he is taking, in two areas: first, the Friday and Saturday evening drinking sessions that involve the young and the under-aged; and, secondly, police manpower? On the latter point, knowing that my right hon. Friend is a charitable man, may I ask him to respond generously to the application by West Mercia police for 40 additional police posts in 1989?

Those are two pertinent questions. On the first one, the Licensing Act 1988 toughened the law against illegal under-age drinking. We have reminded the justices and the police of the powers available under existing laws—for example, to revoke in mid-course the licences of disorderly pubs. I hope that, as a result, the sort of incidents to which my hon. Friend refers will decline.

How many police authorities are seeking increases in the manpower of their forces? By how much will the right hon. Gentleman's proposed increase fall short of what is being sought?

Most of them are seeking increases, I believe. I am not, of course, responsible for figures in Scotland, but in England and Wales, most are doing so. I have 1,100 places to allocate for next year alone, which is a record on top of a record. Of that, 300 will go to the Metropolitan police and 800 to the provincial forces in England and Wales. Although that total will be a record on top of a record and although it will be a greater increase in real terms than any other public service is receiving, it will not, of course, meet all demands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the experiment in Bournemouth on the introduction of video surveillance equipment in deterring miscreants and identifying criminals? Is he prepared to consider extending those experiments elsewhere, including my own constituency of Torbay?

It is not for the Home Office to decide; it is a matter for local chief officers to decide, with their local authorities where necessary. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. Not only in football grounds has such apparatus has been useful.

Does not the Home Secretary think that there is something incompatible between the complacency of his answers and his own statistics, which show that violent crime has increased by 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. on the past two sets of figures that he produced—a record on a record? That is not conducive to the smugness that he has displayed this afternoon.

The right hon. Gentleman has the failing that he is always rather anxious to exaggerate the bad news and to explain away the good news. The good news yesterday was that there was a substantial reduction in the total of recorded crime and, in particular, a sharp reduction in the number of burglaries—a crime to which Opposition Members constantly drew my attention when the figures were becoming worse, but on which they are silent when the figures improve. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that there was a sharp rise in the reported level of violent crime last year and continuing this year, but that as the quarters of this year have proceeded, that rise is levelling out.

As we approach the winter solstice, will my right hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of the Public Order Act 1986? Is he aware that there is no desire or intention on the part of the communities in Wiltshire and elsewhere to witness confrontation between summer hippies and the resident population? Will he do all that he can to encourage those who seek trouble at the summer solstice to stay away?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I regard him as the joint author of the clause in the Public Order Act that is called the "Hippy clause". I am glad that it has had a good effect in his county and elsewhere. The advice that he has given is sound.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

I have asked the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for its views on the introduction of national identity cards and I am awaiting its response. We are also studying the recent recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Many people carry proof of identity in various forms, but it would be a different and substantial step to impose a univeral compulsory system with corresponding police powers.

The Secretary of State seems to be hazy and vague about the Government's proposals. Does he accept that many people would regard the introduction of compulsory ID cards—or even pressure to carry them on a voluntary basis—as an intrusion into civil liberties and that they would deeply resent it? Will he take this opportunity to state categorically that there will be no requirement to carry ID cards in this country?

I simply repeat my original answer, which met the hon. Gentleman's point. An increasing number of people carry proof of identity in various forms as a matter of convenience, but it would be a different matter to impose a universal compulsory system with corresponding police powers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who see considerable merit in identity cards would favour the Government initially facilitating the carrying of such cards on a voluntary basis, as once they had been used, they would become acceptable to the public?

I note that observation, and it is certainly a possible way forward. I think that it would be sensible to await the considered view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, for which I have asked, because in the past the police have been reluctant to advocate a compulsory system, believing that it would not really be worth while. We need to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend, as well as the kind of documents that people will be carrying across Europe after 1992, but as I said—and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in July—we are not satisfied that the case has been made out for a compulsory system.

Does the Home Secretary understand that some of us have a sneaking sympathy for the principle of identity cards, but that that is outweighed by our concern about the erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the past few years? Does not the Home Secretary feel a twinge of conscience at some of the actions brought in the courts, at the complaints that he receives as a Member of Parliament and at the representations made by Back Benchers about the treatment of our constituents? Does he not understand that that is why we shall have to oppose the introduction of identity cards even though we may have some sympathy with the principle?

The hon. Gentleman is getting involved in a very convoluted argument. I do not accept his view and I do not recall such cases. During the previous Parliament we approved a system for receiving and dealing with complaints against the police under independent supervision, and I believe that it is working well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all party Select Committee on Home Affairs has recommended in its report a voluntary identity card for civil liberty reasons, because such a card will grant ease of travel within the European Community and will mean that the less secure British visitor's passport can be replaced by a better quality document that will be more widely accepted?

I understand that that is the gist of the Select Committee's report. As I said in my original answer, I believe that the case for a voluntary system post-1992 needs studying.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet officers of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss the resource implications of the Carlisle report.

We are considering the Carlisle report and look forward to receiving comments from the National Association of Probation Officers among many others. But it would be premature to make the assumptions which would be needed for a discussion of resource implications at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that the Carlisle report stressed the value and effectiveness of the work of the probation service? When will the Government recognise that probation care is often far more effective than imprisonment and allocate proper resources to the probation and after-care service?

The probation service—among many public services—has enjoyed a record improvement in its resources since 1979. Its cash resources have been increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms, and its manpower has increased by one third. We look forward to the co-operation of the probation service, both in implementing any changes that occur as a result of the recommendations of the Carlisle committee and in putting into action the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for punishment in the community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one aspect of the Carlisle report is bound to cause grave disquiet? It is proposed to divorce the responsibilities of the Parole Board—as a separate body—from the Home Secretary's decisions. Does the Minister have a view on that?

Thus far, we are still consulting. Clearly, it would be a major step for an executive body to be set up over which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had no control. My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the strong public concern that those who commit serious and violent crime should stay in prison for a very long time.

May we have a straighter answer about the Government's attitude to the Carlisle report? Is the Minister discontented with that report because it has missed the opportunity to cut overcrowding in our prisons at a stroke by going for automatic parole after one third of a sentence has been served—a step which would reduce the prison population by 8,000 and solve many of the problems in our overcrowded prisons?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should criticise my noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and others for the hard work that they put into their excellent report. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for observations from those who are interested by the end of March. This is a fundamental and important issue which deserves full consultation and discussion rather than ad hoc comments from the Dispatch Box before such a full consultation.

When my hon. Friend considers those matters, will he take into consideration that there is much dissatisfaction with the tendency to increase administrative release and to thwart the judiciary's wishes to sentence people to certain lengths of imprisonment?

My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the discontent about that trend not only among the higher judiciary and others but in society at large.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish broadcasting media regarding the Government's White Paper, Cm. 517.

We are in regular contact with representative organisations, such as the ITV Association, the Association of Independent Radio Contractors and the Cable Television Association, all of whom represent Scottish interests. Among other contacts this year, I have visited Scottish Television and Radio Clyde, and discussed Gaelic broadcasting with Comunn na Gaidhlig. [Interruption.]

Perfectly forgivable. [Interruption.]

Order.

The Minister can relax; I shall address him in English.

Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please take his seat?

Will the Minister take that point on board, particularly in relation to Scotland where quality and commitment to national broadcasting are important?

I stress that it will be necessary for all those who apply for franchises under Channel 3, the regional channel, first to satisfy the Independent Television Commission of their ability to cross quality hurdles to show programmes of quality and of regional origin. We are in the consultative period on the White Paper on broadcasting and it was in that context that the other day, for example, I met the Independent Television Association, which has already raised many points with me which we shall be considering further.

Since the SNP is now in favour of Scotland in Europe, would it be helpful if that party were to make it abundantly clear whether, given the legislation for which it voted, it is in favour of the sale of STV to French, Italian or Greek companies as proposed in the legislation?

Order. That is a little wide of the question. The question should be to the Minister.

That will be one of the many difficult questions that the new Independent Television Commission will have to study when it comes into being.

I presume that the organisation that the hon. Gentleman discussed gaelic broadcasting with was An Comunn Gaidhealach and presumably he showed it the bratach bana in the process. In considering the amount of programme time to be given to independent producers, will he recall that not all Scottish programmes are derived from Scotland? Will the percentage be based on the total or on the percentage produced in Scotland? Secondly, when talking about independent productions in Scotland, will he ensure that we are not planning to auction off only to the national large-scale organisations?

I am not certain that I heard all the hon. Gentleman's question. I took my pronunciation of Comunn na Gaidhlig from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) who was responsible for bringing the deputation to see me. Thereafter, I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about the amount of independent production in Scotland geared to the Scottish audience. Border Television, about one third of whose audience is in Scotland, has increased its independent production facilities for use by others from about £40,000 a year to over £3 million. BBC Scotland is now producing 228 hours a year of network programmes and 584 hours of programmes specifically directed at the Scottish market.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, especially in the north-east, there is a fondness for Grampian Television? That lies behind part of the questions asked by Opposition Members. Is he aware that in the discussions that many of us had with the Scottish broadcasters there was an acceptance and an awareness of the opportunities that will arise as a result of cable and microwave broadcasting? That will make it possible to produce programmes with more Scottish content and more local programmes for different parts of Scotland, because the Highlands are different from the Lowlands or the Borders.

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I recently read an interesting study by Grampian which emphasised the extent to which programmes such as Scottish documentaries and local Scottish news are of particular interest to Scottish viewers. There is no doubt that the arrival of more microwave television, as suggested in the White Paper, will, on a local basis, provide great opportunities for distant communities in Scotland to receive more television services in the future.

Surely the Minister should have specific discussions with the Scottish broadcasting authorities because under the auction proposal small companies such as Grampian and Border will have no chance at all. There is spare capacity in Scotland and, therefore, there is a good case for awarding Channel 5 north of the border.

As I have already said, I have met representatives of Scottish Television recently. The managing director of Scottish Television was one of those who came to see me recently. If any Scottish organisations representing broadcasting want to come to see me in the coming weeks, they are welcome to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the proposed pilot projects to use electronic monitoring for people on bail will commence; and if he will make a statement.

We expect the projects to begin next summer.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his humane innovation. Will he reassure the House that there will be no increase in the proportion of people receiving bail under the scheme who are accused of certain crimes of violence for which the scheme may not be appropriate? Will he reassure the House that people who break the terms of their bail under the scheme will be sent back to gaol by the courts?

I can give an assurance on both counts.

Does the Minister have any plans to place an electronic tag on Umberto Fiore who is wanted by the Italian authorities? They have been seeking to extradite him from this country for the past seven years in connection with the bombing of a train that resulted in the deaths of more than 80 people.

There has been no delay in the consideration of that case.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any requests and representations from representatives of the Kindertransport group in connection with its planned 50-year commemorations in 1989.

In November my right hon. Friend received, and officials acknowledged, an invitation from the chair of the Kindertransport committee to open its planned 50-year commemorations in June 1989. My right hon. Friend will not be able to attend as he will be at a meeting of European Ministers of Justice in the Hague, but I am pleased to accept the invitation on his behalf.

I thank my hon. Friend for his and the Home Office's response in encouraging and supporting the venture and for accepting the invitation. Does he agree that it will be a moving occasion—it will take place in Harrow leisure centre in June 1989—when Jewish refugees who were given permission to come into Britain 50 years ago by the then Home Secretary will be commemorating their survival of the evils of Nazism and the fact that the United Kingdom lived up to its honourable tradition of providing a haven for political refugees?

I thank my hon. Friend for the remarks at the beginning of his question. I am well aware not only of his work but of that of his wife in helping Jewish communities throughout the world. Like him, I hope that this will be a memorable and moving occasion to commemorate a time when Britain responded to its traditional obligation to look after refugees.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given consideration to introducing legislation which would require parents to stand trial alongside under-age members of their family brought to court for criminal offences.

Parents can already be required to attend the court with children under 17 and to pay fines, compensation and costs imposed on such children. I wish that this provison were better known, and more widely used.

Will my right hon. Friend consider making parents' attendance at courts in these circumstances mandatory? Does he agree that the quality of our society would be best improved by stressing the individual's responsibilities to it? Does he agree that for too long now we have stressed the individual's rights in, rather than his responsibilities to, society?

I entirely agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The Prime Minister and I have been stressing those exact points and will continue to do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. Not now.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend agree to convey to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the warm congratulations of the House on his blunt demand that the Irish Government review their extradition procedures? Does she agree that the fight against terrorism demands the wholehearted support of all parties in the House—not the often half-hearted attitude manifested by the Opposition?

Yes, it will give me great pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have also had a clear assurance from the Taoiseach, repeated in the Dail this week, that the Irish Government's extradition procedures will be looked at again if they prove unsatisfactory, as they clearly have done.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health says:

"most of the egg production in this country is … infected with salmonella".

"it is not the case that most eggs are infected."

We are aware of the deep problems facing the egg industry. We think that we have a duty to give greater publicity to the advice that the Chief Medical Officer has already given, which I repeated to the House at Tuesday's Question Time. We are already taking measures under the new code of practice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tackle the new strain of salmonella. We are also urgently considering the representations that have been made to us.

Is it not obvious from that answer that the concern expressed by the Prime Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as by Opposition Members, is well founded? Is it not also obvious that £500,000 is much too little to repair the damage done to the egg industry, and much too much to spend on saving the face of the Under-Secretary of State for Health?

The right hon. Gentleman knows from the answer that I gave last time that there is a problem, and that salmonella is connected with and has been traced to eggs. There have been about 49 cases affecting more than 1,000 people. It is our bounden duty to give the Chief Medical Officer's advice to everyone in a way that can be clearly understood. As I indicated, we are also considering other matters.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

Following yesterday's statement by Mr. Yasser Arafat, in which he recognised Israel's right to exist and unequivocally renounced violence and terrorism, does my right hon. Friend share the hope that the way is clear for an international conference to settle the problems of the middle east?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I believe that Mr. Arafat's latest statement justifies our insistence since 1985 on three conditions being met before the PLO could enter into negotiations. They are, first, that the PLO recognises United Nations resolutions 242 and 338; secondly, that it recognises explicitly Israel's right to exist behind secure borders; and, thirdly, that it unconditionally renounces violence and terrorism. It seems that all three have been met, and I join my hon. Friend in hoping that that will enable negotiations to go forward within the framework of an international conference, which proposal we have also supported for a considerable length of time.

Has the Prime Minister read the report stressing once again the dangers of global warming that was published last week? [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not hear me. I asked whether she has read the report once again stressing the dangers of global warming. Does she recall that a little over a month ago—[Interruption.]

Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time.

Does the Prime Minister recall that a little more than a month ago, she agreed with me that there is an urgent necessity for an energy conservation programme? Does she recall setting a target of 2 per cent. for energy conservation in Britain? Will the Prime Minister say now what the Government will do about that?

Yes, we recognise the dangers that could arise from the greenhouse effect. We acknowledge that joint efforts to tackle it are required on the part of all nations. It is only partly a matter of energy efficiency; it is also a matter of preserving tropical rain forests, which use up carbon dioxide better than anything else, and of replacing some coal energy production by nuclear energy. Yes, it is important to achieve energy efficiency. Most people are aiming to do that, because it leads to lower costs. However, it is not the only factor, and many additional aspects must be tackled jointly with other countries. The subject is also tied up with chlorofluorocarbons, which can aggravate the greenhouse effect. We shall have a conference on that aspect in this country next March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be widely welcomed if she is able to announce that her Government will make a contribution to the mayor of Wandsworth's appeal for the victims of the Clapham Junction rail disaster and their families?

I understand that the mayor of Wandsworth has set up a disaster fund. Her Majesty's Government will contribute to it the sum of £250,000. We hope that that will encourage others to make further contributions.

To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Grangemouth.

At present, I have no plans to do so.

If the Prime Minister does not want to visit my constituents, may I, in all seriousness, ask if two of my constituents may visit her at 10 Downing street? Both have been widowed for a long time, and I wrote to the Prime Minister about one of them. Neither of them will be allowed to transfer from the widowed mother's allowance to the widow's pension. Both have to live on £35 a week less than they did before the recent changes in social security regulations. As I admit to complete failure in my attempts to tell them how to survive on £35 a week less, may I have those widows meet the Prime Minister—so that she may tell them how their families can survive over Christmas on £35 a week less than they had in the past?

The hon. Gentleman knows that a decision on any particular case is made not by the Government but by independent statutory authorities within the framework of legislation passed by the House. He is also aware that the guarantee that those pensions will be protected against inflation is now firmer than at any time in history, and that more generous income support has been provided than ever before. I hope that he will tell that to the lady concerned.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware how much pensioners in my constituency are now looking forward to Christmas? They received their Christmas bonus last week, and are secure in the knowledge that heating costs for the winter are included in their income support. If we have a particularly cold spell this winter, more people than ever before will receive additional assistance to pay their heating costs.

My hon. Friend is correct. The Christmas bonus is now an annual event, as it was not under the last Labour Government, when pensioners did not always receive their bonus. The uprating of benefits in line with inflation is now not only annual but related specifically to the RPI, and is more assured than ever before. The heating allowance has now been included in income support, so pensioners can be sure of receiving it, and there is a better severe weather payment than ever before. That is all because increasing prosperity has enabled us to be more generous to such people.

May I refer the right hon. Lady to the Government's political guarantee to 16 and 17-year-olds that they will obtain YTS places? If they do not do so, they are rendered penniless. Why does the right hon. Lady not make that political guarantee a legal guarantee, and thus give 16 and 17-year-olds real rights?

In my answer to a question a few days ago, I made it perfectly clear that there are more YTS places than there are applicants for them. As that is true in all regions, I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. He must be hard put to find a critical question.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's announcement of the latest substantial fall in unemployment, which brings the figure down by 1 million from July 1986? It is down for the 28th consecutive month. Has she also noticed that in Wales, which has had 20 per cent. of all inward investment, the figure has fallen faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole?

Yes, unemployment is indeed falling everywhere, but, as my hon. Friend says, Wales is doing particularly well, as are the west midlands and the north-west. The position relating to the long-term unemployed is particularly encouraging, with a record fall of some 450,000 in the past two years, and there are more people at work than ever before.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

In the course of her busy day, has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the statement issued by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in which he calls into question her nuclear policies and, among other things, describes her mean-minded response to Mr. Gorbachev's offer of unilateral reduction last week as "a bronchial whisper"? Will she shout her response a little louder?

I had a chance to read the statement, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with it. As he is aware from the figures on conventional weapons that I gave last time, the Soviet Union still has between two and three times as many tanks and weapons as we have. It has reduced its weaponry by about 10 per cent., but its superiority is still enormous.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December 1988.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the interesting and very acceptable news from Europe about whisky: that 40 per cent. is to be the correct proof for whisky throughout Europe? Is not that, in conjunction with the Scotch Whisky Act, clear evidence that this Government and the Conservative party are the best custodians of Scotland's interests?

Yes. The recent agreement in Brussels, after six years of detailed and difficult negotiations, mark a major step forward for the Scotch whisky industry. The regulation provides a clear definition of whisky and minimum alcohol strengths for all spirits, including the 40 per cent. alcohol by volume for all whisky that was sought by the Scotch Whisky Act, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend in the last Session. I agree with him that this shows the Government's determination to safeguard this major exporting industry.

Will the Prime Minister go a little further than she went when she replied to her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)? Given that the American Administration is to meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation at ambassadorial level, and given also that the PLO has met all the commitments that the right hon. Lady set down, will she now instruct her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation at that level to encourage the process of moderation that will eventually lead to the resolution of the middle east conflict?

We have no immediate plans to do so, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently met the PLO representative because he had already accepted the three points that were later accepted by Mr. Arafat. I agree that this is a considerable step forward, and we most certainly wish to encourage it.

Business questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No. I shall take points of order after business questions.

My point of order relates to a Home Office question.

I shall take it after business questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is seeking to raise a point of order that arises directly—

Order. I know, because the hon. Gentleman has told me about it.

rose—

I shall take points of order later. [Interruption.] We take points of order after Question Time. These are business questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I understood, Mr. Speaker—

Order. The same rules must apply to every hon. Member. The House knows that points of order are taken after Question Time and business questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] The Secretary of State is here.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall not take it until after business questions.