To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain the purposes and duties of the proposed community volunteers schemes.

The Government have not formulated proposals for community volunteer schemes in the field of crime prevention. Members of the public are already contributing directly to crime prevention by joining neighbourhood watch and crime prevention panels. We encourage those wishing to give more active support to the police to join the special constabulary.

In the light of the Home Secretary's recent speeches on the matter, will the Minister tell the House the relevance of the proposals for unpaid volunteers and special constables to solve the special problems which exist, such as the fear that women feel when travelling on the Underground at night and the problem of lager louts massing outside pubs and night clubs? Is it not really a matter of training workers without uniforms to do the jobs of special constables without wages?

That is quite a good line, but it is totally facetious and fatuous. We need more special constables to join up as active citzens in uniform, to help to relieve the police—as they can do—for their mainstream duties, by carrying out many ancillary duties for them. That will allow better policing. That is why we propose to introduce special constables on the Underground soon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

In view of my hon. Friend's remarks, does he agree that the police are hugely overburdened with road traffic work and that it is about time that we considered establishing a highway patrol so that the police can concentrate on criminal matters?

It is the view of both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself that issues of traffic patrolling are best left to the chief constables in each area, who are operationally in charge of those difficult responsibilities.

Is it not deceiving the still rising number of victims of violence in the west midlands and everywhere else to pretend that community volunteers can stem the alarming increase in crimes of violence? Is it not merely an attempt to powder over the problem rather than put enough feet on the beat to prevent even more people becoming victims of violence?

More well-turned lines, but they are very wide of the target. The hon. Gentleman avoids the fact, which I made clear in my main answer, that we have formulated no proposals for community volunteers. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Rather, we encourage more active citizens to join up as special constables to help the police and the attack on violent crime by relieving the police of the burdens of some of their ancillary duties.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for ensuring that men sent to Her Majesty's prisons Stocken and Ashwell are suitable for category C regimes.

Only prisoners in security category C are sent to Her Majesty's prisons Stocken and Ashwell. The prison service takes great care to ensure that all prisoners sent to those prisons are suitable for the conditions there.

Does my hon. Friend recall from our correspondence the very real concern of the Prison Officers Association that men are being sent to those prisons who are really suitable for category B? In view of the serious incident which occurred at Ashwell last August, will my hon. Friend ensure that the prison department listens closely to the views of the Prison Officers Association, which represents the people who are at the sharp end every day?

My hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of his constituents for the persistence with which he has acted to ensure that prisoners sent to the two prisons he mentioned are suitable for the conditions there. My hon. Friend will know that he and I are to meet shortly to discuss that particular issue and I hope that what I say then will reassure him.

Will the Minister ensure that places are left available at category C prisons Stocken and Ashwell, ready for Monday's performance at the Royal Courts of Justice when the law-breaking Lords—led by Lord Donaldson, previous head of the national industrial relations court—decide to go on strike? Presumably the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General will band together to take appropriate action against the lawbreakers, but will the culprits be sent to category C prisons or to somewhere even harsher?

It is for the prison service to determine whether that security categorisation is right, but persons are sent to category C prisons only if they are not a threat to the public.

My hon. Friend recently advised me in a written reply that of the 32,000 prisoners serving sentences of one year or more, 10 per cent.—3,000—of them are foreign nationals. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they were sent back to their own countries to serve those sentences it would make a great deal of difference to both Ashwell and Stocken and lessen the current problems in our gaols?

That proposal goes somewhat wide of the question, though it is an interesting idea. The trouble is that if some of those offenders were sent back to their countries of origin they might not have to serve a period in custody.

So what?

They would then not be punished for what they had done.

Is not this problem of categorisation in a local prison symptomatic of the problems in local prisons throughout the country? Such is the pressure on local prisons that categorisation and allocation is haphazard. Prison officers have certainly brought this problem to the attention of the Opposition. Many prisoners are allocated to entirely the wrong prisons, which bodes ill for the forthcoming summer months.

As I have had cause to say before, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is not master of his material. Stocken and Ashwell are not local prisons, nor are they overcrowded or understaffed. In many respects, they are admirable prisons. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should do a little homework before he next intervenes in questions about the prison service.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to reform the law on charities.

I announced in January last year that we intended to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals made by Sir Philip Woodfield in his efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities. I hope shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals.

While I welcome the White Paper and hope that it will shortly be published—followed, one hopes, by legislation in the next Session of Parliament—will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirm that the Charity Commissioners can deregister charities found to be fraudulent and remove trustees? Is it not a pity that that does not happen more often?

The commissioners have powers of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend and are ably led and increasingly well organised. The trouble with the existing law is that it imposes on them a number of secondary duties which make it difficult for them to carry out effectively all the important tasks that they would wish.

Is the Home Secretary aware that in the past 12 months many members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have written to me complaining about the running of that organisation—for which we all have great respect? Following the expulsion of the watchdog group of RSPCA members, I convened a meeting and asked those members if they would be prepared to accept me as arbiter between the warring factions. Is the Home Secretary aware that they refused, and that many RSPCA members are making grave allegations against the organisation, about which something should be done? Will he ensure that any reform provides for an inquiry of some sort?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's reputation for calm and impartiality did not serve him on that occasion. It is surely for the RSPCA to sort the matter out. If the question of its charitable status should arise, it will be a matter between the RSPCA and the Charity Commission; certainly it is not my responsibility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bank accounts around the country contain money collected for worthwhile projects such as children's playgrounds, sports fields and conservation that have come to nothing? Often the promoters have left or died. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to release that money—which may run into millions of pounds—for other suitable, worthwhile charity projects?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Charity Commission is already able to take action if it knows of money having been abandoned in that way. For example. it can appoint new trustees. We propose, however, to strengthen its powers as a result of the Woodfield report. I will write to my hon. Friend with details.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new initiatives are planned to prevent the importation of cocaine from Colombia and other Latin American nations; what assessment he has made of the extent to which organised crime is involved in this traffic; and if he will make a statement.

Measures that the Government have taken against the production and importation of cocaine and other drugs include the provision of £1·8 million of drug-related assistance to Latin American countries over the past three years and the setting up of specialist Customs teams to target cocaine trafficking. Organised criminal gangs are often involved with this traffic.

When, late last year, I attended an international conference in Washington which covered drug problems, Colombian representatives told me that they did not think that enough was being done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to suppress demand. They stressed their own strenuous efforts to curtail supply, which had resulted in the deaths of their Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, more than 50 judges and more than 1,700 police and law enforcement officers in recent years. Does my hon. Friend recognise the efforts made by the Colombians?

Yes, I do. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a meeting yesterday with the Colombian Foreign Minister. It was a very profitable and helpful exchange. My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of cocaine. In 1988 the Customs seized larger quantities of cocaine than of heroin. We have a range of policies designed to deal with the problems of drug misuse and importation, which of course address the cocaine problem, but in view of the changing figures we are reassessing those policies to establish whether they need adjustment.

When those officers are engaged in stopping the importation of cocaine from Colombia, will the Minister ask them to stop the importation of coal from Colombia at the same time?

Order. I do not think that it is a drug, is it?

Yes, it is. You have helped me, Mr. Speaker. The importation of Colombian coal mined by nine-year-old children is not just a drug but a drain on Britain's balance of payments.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition will become increasingly alarmed at the fact that the sole Opposition spokesman on these important matters appears to be the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the importance of intelligence-gathering in dealing with this odious trade? Are we doing enough to stamp it out by working with the authorities not just in Colombia but in Bolivia and Peru where the drug is produced?

That is an extremely important point. The exchange of intelligence and information goes to the root of our ability, and that of European countries generally, to deal with the problem of cocaine importation. We are establishing ever better relations with the Latin American countries and are extending our network of drug liaison officers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement concerning a Government DNA testing scheme to assist those seeking to settle in the United Kingdom.

We are considering introducing a centrally run DNA scheme, the cost of which will not fall on the general taxpayer. The use of such a scheme would not, of course, be compulsory for settlement applicants. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

Why are the Government dragging their feet about the introduction of a DNA testing scheme? Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread suspicion that the Government are reluctant to introduce the scheme because DNA testing offers reliable evidence to prove the genuineness of applications from families who wish to be reunited in this country and that that is why the Government are wasting so much time? Over the past 12 months, the Minister has been saying that he hopes to make an announcement "shortly" and "as soon as possible", and last weekend, he said that it would be made within weeks. It is high time that the announcement was made and that families were able to take advantage of the scheme to be reunited in this country.

The hon. Gentleman is taking his usual blinkered and biased view about anything to do with immigration. In the past four months alone, the immigration and nationality department has accepted 750 DNA test reports showing whether the relationship is as claimed, but of the reports submitted to us some 12 per cent. have shown that the parents and children are not related as claimed. One in eight couples thus find that one of them is not the parent of the child although both had thought that they were. That produces many problems —in relation to the admission of illegitimate children, for example—which must properly be considered before we take a final decision on the matter.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has shown his faith in the infallibility of DNA—a faith that I share. Given that faith, can my hon. Friend say when he intends to introduce DNA fingerprinting not only for immigration cases but for everyone convicted of crime?

As my hon. Friend knows, DNA fingerprinting has already been used successfully in homicide cases. The figures that I quoted to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) were intended to show that we are already accepting the test in immigration cases. We are now bending our minds as to how to introduce a centrally run scheme which will be fair to all applicants and will avoid erecting financial barriers which could be a deterrent to genuine applicants, without causing the general taxpayer to pay. That is a difficult problem, but we are setting about solving it.

Will the Minister recognise the problem of people paying for DNA testing themselves whereby it has been shown that decisions to refuse entry taken by the Government in the past were clearly wrong? Should not those people be allowed immediate, priority admission to this country—even if they are now 18 if they should have been admitted in the original instance?

The hon. Gentleman must consider the fact that when those children were under 18 they applied as dependants. That is the basis in our immigration rules on which children under 18 are normally allowed into this country. The hon. Gentleman must consider whether it is right that those who may already be married, heads of families, with many children living abroad should be introduced with their families into the United Kingdom simply because a DNA test shows that the father is related as claimed. That is the issue to which we must give close attention.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer deserved a rather more fulsome welcome than it received from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? My hon. Friend is right to believe that such a scheme should be voluntary. If DNA testing became widely available on a voluntary basis at the earliest possible date to establish conclusively the blood relationships which need to be proved in the case of dependants seeking settlement, it would be welcomed by the ethnic minority communities in this country.

I accept fully what my hon. Friend has said. We accept DNA testing now when the results have been voluntarily produced, but the cost of producing them is a serious financial burden. That is why we are trying, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to arrive at a scheme that would avoid the burden falling on the ordinary taxpayer but would not financially harm individual families too greatly. We hope to do that and to announce the results as soon as possible.

As DNA testing has shown that many people were wrongly refused entry to this country, does the Minister accept that DNA testing could eliminate queues and paperwork and save vast amounts of money and that to impose high charges will simply erect a financial barrier in place of a bureaucratic barrier? The Minister says that the test may not be compulsory, but does he not accept that it may be necessary because of the haphazard and inefficient way in which entry clearance officers work? Will he not reconsider allowing entry to those dependants who are now over the age of 18? A manifest injustice has been done to them. The Minister should not seek to stand in the way of family unity—a cause that I should have expected the Conservative party to espouse.

The hon. Gentleman's attack on members of the immigration service was totally unjust, although I would not expect him, from his hideout in Edinburgh, to have great experience of immigration matters. DNA testing will not, as the hon. Gentleman put it, eliminate queues if the Labour party sticks to the policy to which it was committed in 1987 of repealing the immigration and nationality Acts. All the fair but firm immigration controls that we have introduced would disappear overnight.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the subject of making it obligatory for parents to attend court alongside alleged juvenile offenders.

In addition to the recent questions from my hon. Friend, in the past 12 months the Home Office has received about 40 letters stressing the need to involve parents in the consequences of their children's misbehaviour. Some referred to parents' attendance at court with their children.

On the very day when it is reported that three children, aged six, seven and nine, carried out a depraved sex attack on an elderly, disabled and defenceless woman, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is high time that society made it clear that it will hold parents entirely responsible for the actions of their children?

On the second point, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that we need to make considerable and rapid strides forward by making parents more responsible for their children's criminal acts. On the first point, I cannot and should not comment on press reports, but I agree entirely with Superintendent Martin Burton—reported in The Daily Telegraph, so it must be true—who says:

"Parents should be responsible for bringing up their children, teaching them to tell the truth, to respect other people's property and to look after those less fortunate. They should be told it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal and bully."

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell that to other Ministers. In view of his comments today, and more particularly his recent utterances on children and parents in court, does he agree that instead of seeking to punish parents for the acts of their children, whom the parents are sometimes not in a position to control, it might be better to investigate the root cause of juvenile crime and make efforts to provide help for those families which, at an early stage, have problems with their children?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's serious interest in the issue. He is right that parents who, for a variety of reasons, cannot control their children, or who have sought help because of their children's unruly behaviour, should not be punished by the law. However, it is right that we should follow the signposts provided by the Labour Government's Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which provides that parents can be bound over on a recognisance of £500 to ensure the proper conduct of their children. I look forward to new and imaginative thoughts on the issue in the forthcoming Labour party policy review, though heaven knows what they will be.

As parents are already required to go to court in truancy cases, and as most children who are at risk indulge in criminal activities at the age of 14 or 15, will my hon. Friend reconsider the time limit? It can take up to two years to get the parent and the child to court. Will he also reconsider the penalties which can be imposed? Will he ensure that such cases are dealt with as quickly as possible as there is no point in taking children to court once they have left school?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best form of justice is the swiftest form of justice, particularly when dealing with children. Such delays are undesirable and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters. In addition, I agree that the attendance of parents in court when their children are being tried is very desirable indeed, and I am sure that all of my hon. Friends would wish to see that happen on every such occasion.

How would the Minister's much publicised new proposal dealing with the failure to prevent child crime, to which he indirectly referred just now, distinguish between parents who turn a blind eye and those who genuinely cannot cope with the behaviour of their children? Does the Minister realise that his proposal is unworkable and, at best, would increase family breakdown and create even more homelessness? Is he aware that there are already enough powers to make parents accountable for the behaviour of their children? Why, therefore, does he not throw his proposals in the dustbin, where they belong?

I answer no to the hon. Gentleman's second and third questions. As to his first question, if he had bothered to read my words he would have seen that in the four or five-page document in which these ideas are presented the methods are very carefully set out. Should we proceed with such an offence, those parents who are not able to deal with their offending children can be separated from the deliberately delinquent parents and the deliberately delinquent children, about whom the Labour party has no ideas at all. If the hon. Gentleman's question is good evidence of the new thinking emerging from the Labour party's policy review, heaven help the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

At the end of March 1989 there were 66,423 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering approximately 3¾ million households. This is a new record—28 per cent. more neighbourhood watches than a year ago.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the neighbourhood watch schemes have led to a reduction in the number of burglaries, particularly in London, and that their proven success in reducing crime is the best way of increasing the number of schemes and of encouraging residents to join and to participate?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that one of the best ways of accelerating the present happy decline in domestic burglary is to have more neighbourhood watches. Perhaps more district councils could follow the recent example of Brentwood district council, which has appointed its first neighbourhood watch co-ordinator. That could do a lot of good.

Does the Minister accept that, whale Opposition Members support neighbourhood watch schemes, they believe that those schemes must be linked into a positive partnership between the police and local authorities, and that if we are to have proper crime prevention we need to give democratically elected authorities a lead role in crime prevention? Will the Minister and the Home Secretary give those authorities the resources and the powers to do that job constructively?

Many Labour-controlled local authorities—in Hull, for example—are very happy to co-operate with the Home Office in the efforts to reduce crime through crime prevention measures. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would bother to go to a county like Cleveland and advise the Labour-controlled local authority o co-operate with the neighbourhood watch movement instead of attacking it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the success of a neighbourhood watch scheme stems directly from the relationship of the police constable on the beat with the people themselves? In my constituency—where, two years ago, there were 60 break-ins a year in one particular area—since there has been a neighbourhood watch scheme, with a first-class police officer in charge, and co-operation from the local people, we have had no break-ins?

I hope that if my right hon. Friend extends an invitation to me he will let me meet the police constable and the people involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme. It is not just neighbourhood watch schemes in areas like Castle Point—my right hon. Friend's constituency—that produce these remarkable results; similar results are being produced in the rather more difficult territories of Islington, Rochdale and many of our great northern cities, and they deserve the support of the Labour party. That is why the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) should go to Cleveland and give the Labour-controlled council there a good talking to.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action taken by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the insurance industry to reduce levels of car theft.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the insurance industry have played an active part in the preparation of British standards for vehicle security and for anti-theft alarms. They have also taken steps to increase public awareness of the opportunities for preventing car theft and the insurance industry has established a central register of total loss claims. It is encouraging that, in 1988, theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles and theft from motor vehicles fell by 6 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply. The 6 per cent. fall in crime will be welcomed by motorists throughout the country. Can my hon. Friend say what further measures might be taken to reduce crime? Does he think that if motor manufacturers improved the locking on vehicles, it would reduce crime?

We have some good new British standards on car security. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that motor manufacturers can do more. Some manufacturers such as the Rover group and Vauxhall are already doing a great deal. Also, the British insurance industry should strain every sinew to try to introduce new forms of discount to promote car security. It is through such measures that we will produce the admirable results we have seen in Warwickshire—to name a county at random —in the past year where car crime has fallen by about 4 per cent. and theft from cars has fallen by 25 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that some of the devices fitted to cars cause crime rather than prevent it? Is he aware that I have heard many complaints from people who have had a car noise device go off close to their home and who, having gone out to check that the car was not being stolen, have been extremely annoyed to find that it is not possible to turn the device off?

If the car alarms have been properly fitted and conform to the excellent new British standards that we are trying to promote throughout Europe—thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—the problems, which, as the hon. Gentleman said can be a considerable nuisance to local residents, can be obviated. [Interruption.]

Order. Will Government Members please desist from holding private conversations?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet Ministers of other European countries to discuss international co-operation against terrorism.

I shall be attending a meeting of Trevi Ministers under the Spanish presidency in Madrid on 12 May. I shall also be having bilateral talks with my French counterpart on 19 May when our discussions will include measures to counter terrorism.

Bearing in mind that since 1979 in Great Britain alone, leaving aside the carnage in Northern Ireland, 323 people have died and 344 have been injured as a result of terrorist activity, only part of which relates to Northern Ireland and, bearing in mind that increasingly terrorism has an international dimension, will my right hon. Friend ensure that appropriate and adequate measures are being taken internationally to combat such crime? What has been achieved and what does he intend to achieve?

Perhaps I can give three short examples of what we are achieving through the work of the Trevi Ministers. We are ensuring the flow of timely and accurate knowledge between forces of a type that enabled the French authorities to intercept the ship Eksund from Libya, which was loaded with guns and explosives and bound for Ireland. We are assessing the work of terrorist groups in Europe and the extent to which they are helped by states outside Europe and we are looking at the legislation in different countries and encouraging countries to adopt legislation such as that which this Parliament has just passed to deal with terrorist finances.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has convinced any Ministers from other countries to join him in his campaign to combat terrorism?

Yes. That is our common aim.

Given the disagreements that appear to have arisen between the various investigating agencies involved in the Lockerbie disaster, would my right hon. Friend recommend the inclusion of the United States in the kilowatt anti-terrorist European group? At present, it seems that the bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States do not appear to be working very well.

I advise my hon. Friend not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers but to rely more extensively on what Parliament is told about the progress of the Lockerbie inquiry by the Lord Advocate, who is the Minister responsible.

Bearing in mind that no Scottish Law Officer is accountable to this House, will the Home Secretary ensure that his colleague Lord Fraser comes to this place, perhaps to a Committee room, to explain to interested hon. Members exactly what is going on regarding the Lockerbie atrocity? Will he do that, bearing in mind that clearly on the Opposition side of the House we believe in open government and in getting answers to very important, pertinent questions that have been raised on both this side of the Atlantic and on the other? Clearly, this has to be addressed and should not be simply a matter for debate in the press.

I do not agree at all with the hon. Member. The Lord Advocate has a very high reputation in these matters and he has gone out of his way to keep Parliament informed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of assets confiscated from convicted drug traffickers in 1989; and what were the comparable figures for the first quarter of 1988.

Our information is that the courts have made confiscation orders totalling more than £5 million since the relevant powers came into force on 12 January 1987. No precise valuation is made of assets frozen pending trial at any one time, but we believe that between £10 million and £12 million is at present subject to restraint and charging orders.

I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend has not got more precise figures to offer on this innovative form of punishment for drug pedlars. Drug peddling is an international crime and much of the ill-gotten gains are laundered internationally. Can my hon. Friend say what agreements he has with other countries in terms of confiscation of funds held overseas?

Pretty good progress is being made, with some £5 million confiscated and between £10 million and £12 million frozen. We are making good progress with arrangements with other countries. Bilateral agreements have been signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department with five countries, and letters of understanding with two others. We are now seeking to make arrangements with countries such as Jamaica and Nigeria, which will also be very important.

What happens to these confiscated assets? Can I have an assurance that they will be handed over to the police forces concerned so that all these assets can be used in the fight against drugs?

The money, of course, goes to the Treasury in this country. Record allocations are being made to the police at the moment. These have gone up by some 52 per cent. since 1979, and the allocations take into account the severity of the drug problem in different parts of the country.

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

At unlocking on Wednesday 12 April 49,274 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. A further 87 prisoners were held in police cells.

I welcome the fact that the figure is rather lower than it was, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far too many people in prison at the present time? Does he really think that it is necessary or desirable to lock up so many people?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the total prison population is about 800 lower than it was 12 months ago, and that the remand population at the end of February was 1,200 lower than it was 12 months previously. We may be beginning to make some progress in the direction which I know my hon. Friend would like. which is towards having more severe sentences for those who are guilty of serious violent crime but finding disposals other than imprisonment for non-violent offenders.

What steps are the Government taking to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of mentally ill and mentally handicapped persons in prisons, many of them there because the courts can think of nowhere else to send them?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Such people should not end up in prison simply because the other agencies cannot find a place for them. This is something which my colleagues and I are discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whether or not we have too many or too few people in prison, we simply do not have enough drug traffickers in prison? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to make certain that continuing high priority is given to ensuring that drug traffickers are locked up, and locked up for long periods?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what percentage of people, who were charged with shoplifting offences and who pleaded not guilty, were acquitted during the last year for which records are available.

Ten per cent. of those prosecuted for theft from shops in 1987 were acquitted. We do not have information centrally about pleas. There was, however, a welcome 12 per cent. fall in the number of cases in 1988.

Does the Minister recognise the vast danger of innocent shoppers being arrested for and, in many cases, charged with shoplifting offences? Does he know of the Tesco case, in which two women who established their innocence found themselves with a massive costs burden because of the payment-into-court system? Will he please discuss with the Attorney-General possible ways of remedying that vast danger and injustice?

I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's longstanding interest in these matters. I am aware of the case to which he refers. If those who are caught allegedly thieving from shops can prove that they were simply absent-minded or confused, the case will fall. We must remember that there is no special category of shoplifting as a crime in this country. Theft is theft, wherever it occurs.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

Official figures show that the number of people in this country living below the poverty line increased by 55 per cent. in the past 10 years. Therefore, will the Prime Minister call for a commission of inquiry to find out how that happened?

The moment we alter the standard of what is called poverty and raise the threshold, obviously it is possible that more people will come in. We have a very good, comprehensive social security system. It contributes to the living standards of a large proportion of the population, and to nearly one sixth of the disposable income of the population as a whole. The £51 billion that we are now spending on social security benefits is more than the Government collect in income tax.

Has my right hon. Friend heard the rumours about increased inward investment in this country, by international firms from Japan, for example? Does she agree that that has nothing whatever to do with Government subsidies or Socialist planning, but a great deal to do with a good work force, single-union deals, and an atmosphere of encouragement for business which only a Conservative Government can provide?

Yes. The inward investment record into this country is excellent. Other people have great confidence in the policies that are pursued by this Government, and confidence that they will continue to be pursued without controls in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

May I ask the Prime Minister during her busy day to consider the plight of one of my young constituents, Mr. Robert McKee, aged seven, and that of his grandmother? Young Robert was born without any arms. When it rains or snows, his grandmother must hold him by the scruff of the neck in case he falls. He has been refused a bus pass and his grandfather is denied a companion's pass. On seven occasions he has been before a tribunal for a mobility allowance. If the right hon. Lady really cares about the poor and the disadvantaged, why does she make people go through such humiliating hurdles?

Of course one would be deeply concerned about any case such as that—[Interruption.] Of course one would, and every hon. Member would. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has taken the matter up with the appropriate authorities. As I said in reply to the last question, the taxpayer in this country pays about £51 billion towards social security, which is higher than the entire yield of income tax. That is the extent of our commitment.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister spare a thought this afternoon for the frail and elderly living in private residential homes who can no longer make both ends meet because of the limit on the board and lodging allowance which the DHSS has set for 1988? While there must be limits on public expenditure, even for the elderly, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say something to ensure that those living in private residential homes will not be pushed out if there is not sufficient money forthcoming from the DHSS?

In accordance with the general uprating, we have reviewed many of the payments paid to those who live in residential care or in nursing homes, and I think that that is the group to whom my hon. Friend is referring. From Monday, we have provided extra help to nearly nine out of 10 people who claim income support to meet residential care or nursing home fees. We are now helping 150,000 people in such homes compared with 12,000 when we took office, and expenditure has risen from £10 million to £890 million. That is because the economy is successful, and it demonstrates—[Interruption.] Yes, it demonstrates also the extent of our commitment: £10 million when we took office and £890 million now.

Why is the Prime Minister continuing to lose the battle against inflation?

I notice, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in some very percipient replies upstairs, that the level of inflation—it was a miracle that the Labour Government ever achieved it—was a cause of concern for us.

Why is the rate of inflation in Britain twice the European average?

It is not on precisely the same basis —[Interruption.] I would add that the level of unemployment has fallen faster in this country than in all of the European main countries put together.

Will the Prime Minister explain why unemployment, by her reckoning, is still nearly one million higher than it was when she came to power and why, when the rate of inflation was at the average of Europe in 1979, it is twice the average now? Will she give an answer?

The rate of inflation in 1979, when the Labour Government left office, was a lot higher than it is now—[Interruption.] There are now more than 1·5 million more people of working age than there were in 1979. There are today more people in work in this country than ever before and we have a bigger proportion of our people in work than in almost any other country in the EEC.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that the French and Italian Governments should be spending vast sums of money every year directly in subsidising their own nationalised industries to undercut British competition, which is costing this country jobs? Will she add her weight to the campaign to make Europe a place in which there is free and fair competition?

So that we can all go down the pan.

As my hon. Friend knows, state aid is incompatible with the concept of a common market, which is why we must get permission from the EEC in any case where it is given. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind we shall of course take them up vigorously, because state aids may be phased out before we reach 1992 and they should already be the subject of permission. The Commission has recently said that it intends to make much more active use of its powers to scrutinise existing state aids in all member states, and it has our strong support in doing that.

When, in her next Cabinet reshuffle, the Prime Minister is looking for somewhere to send her right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which is further away than Wales, will she consider Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—where the policies and principles that he outlines will be more acceptable than the present ones?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need worry—I should hardly be sending for him—[Interruption.]

Order.

In fact, Scotland and Wales are doing very well because of the economic policies of this Government. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that Scotland has the second highest average male earnings of the whole of the United Kingdom, thanks to the Conservative Government, and to private enterprise.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the Union of European Football Associations to allow English clubs back into Europe in the 1991 season, subject to Government approval?—[Interruption.] Does she agree that the Football Association and the Football League would have had their application turned down had it not been for the Government's intention in the Football Spectators Bill, which will drag English football into the next century?

In so far as I heard my hon. Friend's question, I agree that the decision is welcome and I wish English football teams well when they return to Europe.

Is the Prime Minister aware that when, in response to the vision and courage of Mr. Gorbachev, she continues to use the tired old language of the arms race, she is not speaking for the British people?

Nonsense. The British people are not as easily taken in as the hon. Gentleman. The British people noted that last weekend, for example, East German border guards shot at two people who wished to enter West Berlin, and they are noticing other things that are taking place in the Soviet Union. They know that we must keep our defences sure and that the nuclear deterrent has preserved peace for 40 years—and Conservatives think that peace is important.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

While recognising that the Green Paper on the reform of legal services is a legitimate matter for discussion by judges, does my right hon. Friend share my relief that the judges' proposed discussion in work time of that paper on Monday is off?

Yes, I understand that the judges will hold their discussion on Saturday, 20 May, at a time when the Lord Chancellor will be able to address the meeting as he wishes. That decision is very welcome.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

If, during her busy day, the Prime Minister has time to go to the supermarket, how much would she pay for a large white and how would it compare with the price 10 years ago?

I am sorry, we do not buy large whites.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that port employers employing 90 per cent. or more registered dock workers have given guarantees today against the casualisation of the docks and, accordingly, there is no need now for the dock labour scheme, which we intend to abolish, and there is no need for the dock workers to go on strike?

Yes, I understand that in a major statement issued today, the National Association of Port Employers gave a public guarantee that it will not return to casual employment systems after the repeal of the dock labour scheme in July. The guarantee was endorsed by employers representing over 93 per cent. of Britain's registerd dock workers. It stated:

"This unprecedented promise deals with the major fear voiced by the dockers since the Government made its announcement … The historical justification of the scheme was to end casual employment. Today's promise carries forward that principle. As such, there is obviously no case for inventing a substitute or revised form of the Scheme or equally calling a futile and unnecessary strike."

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

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

Did the Prime Minister see the sad and remarkable television programme by Esther Rantzen last week which revealed the disgraceful under-resourcing of hospitals and facilities for people who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped? Will she give some sign that the Government know and care about those people and that they propose to provide resources not merely to close down mental hospitals, but to provide facilities for people outside which is better, but which cost much more?

With regard to those in hospital, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, expenditure has gone up on all hospital services from £8 billion in 1979 to £24 billion this year. With regard to the proposals for community care in the Griffiths report, the Government are considering those and will in due course make an announcement about their decisions.