To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the likely impact of the Broadcasting Act on the local television coverage of Grampian and the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement.

I am confident that the north of Scotland will in future continue to receive the same high–quality service as it currently enjoys.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recent decision to offer guarantees over three years to preserve the integrity of the present Grampian boundaries for television purposes. But is he aware of the legitimate anxiety that still exists in the north of Scotland generally —in Grampian, in the highlands and islands and the northern and western isles—that beyond that period a predatory bid—say, from central Scotland—could result in there being only one independent television company covering all of Scotland? Given the diversity of views and of regional interests across the country, that would he wholly unacceptable to north of Scotland interests.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for my decision. It means that in this round of bidding, the licence for the Grampian area cannot be bid for by its larger neighbour. The licence can, of course, he bid for by other groups or companies, but the television group has a restricted interest in that. After 1993, it will be possible for the smaller television companies to be bid for by their larger neighbours. Mergers or takeovers will be permitted from the end of 1992–93 at the discretion of the Independent Television Commission.

I, too, welcome what has been done, but does the Home Secretary recognise that a new irony has been created in that, until 1993, the only companies that cannot take over Grampian or any small company are those next door to them, which arguably would be the more suitable if there had to be a takeover? It is odd that Mr. Berlusconi can take over Grampian but Scottish Television cannot. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there would be a more stable state of affairs if, once the areas for transmission had been defined and the franchises awarded for a set period, that remained the position until the next awarding of franchises and that until then any hostile takeover bid was automatically ruled out of court?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a moratorium. Perhaps during that period sensible mergers will come about. It has been said that some of the smaller companies might not be viable for long. That is not ruled out, but it must be at the discretion of the ITC. I assure the hon. Gentleman and others whose constituencies are in the areas of the smaller companies that at the bidding stage and in the case of a change of ownership in the future, good regional programmes will continue to be made and shown. Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 specifically requires that. There are also requirements that regional news shall be of a high quality and that a suitable proportion of regional programmes shall continue to be made in the region.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters to people in the Grampian area and in the highlands is not who owns the franchise but that, as he said, thanks to the scrutiny of the House, there is a much stronger regional requirement in the Broadcasting Act than previously was the case? People in the highlands and Grampian region can look forward to the future in the knowledge that there will have to be a properly structured regional service, whoever may own it.

I can confirm exactly what my hon. Friend said—the Broadcasting Act 1990 contains that requirement. A strength of independent television is the good quality of regional television companies. Many of them have established large production facilities and do a very good job. We wish to ensure that they continue to do so.

Although we all welcome the moratorium that the Home Secretary announced on 28 January, not least those of us who represent constituencies covered by the effective Grampian Television, what procedures will the Home Secretary bring into force to ensure that during the moratorium there will be a clear analysis of the position? It will be small compensation to have a short–term moratorium if, later, Grampian Television and other regional programmes are taken over by a predator with no interest in the area.

My powers in that sector are clearly restricted. It is now the ITC's responsibility to police the round of licence bidding and, after the moratorium, to consider whether mergers should take place. It will be bound by the provisions of the statute and will take into account the points made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated Metropolitan police manpower in 1991–92; and what were actual numbers employed in 1978–79.

The strength of the Metropolitan police on 30 April 1979 was 22,225. The planned average strength of the Metropolitan police in 1991–92 is 28,465, giving the force over 6,000 more officers than when the Government took office.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows an increase of 30 per cent. in Metropolitan police manpower. Although that is welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that the clear–up rate of crime in the Metropolitan police area is still depressingly low? Does he believe that that is because the police spend too much time dealing with minor motoring offences?

I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that the clear–up rate for the serious crime of violence against the person has increased substantially and that the incidence of street violence, because of the campaign by the Met, has decreased. However, the Met is not happy with its present clear–up rate and has begun a crime investigation project, involving more manpower for the CID, improved training, better supervision and, importantly, more information and support for victims. That is a practical response to my hon. Friend's justified worry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what gives the public confidence is not so much the number of police, but the number they see on the street? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he is constantly encouraging the police force in London to put more officers on the streets meeting the public?

My hon. Friend is right. The presence of police officers is encouraging to law–abiding citizens and discouraging to those who want to break the law. The Met understand that point, which we frequently make to them. There are other ways in which the police force can be effectively deployed, one of which, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), is to clear up crimes.

Is not the Minister dodging and weaving here? Is not it a fact that the information that we have from the Met is that, even with the 30 per cent. increase in police manpower, there are fewer policemen and women on the beat now compared with 1979? Is not that a disgrace when crime rates have been soaring and, as has been said, the best sort of crime prevention is the visibility of the police on the street? When will the Government introduce those policies in the Met, put police officers on the street and give them the backing to protect the ordinary citizen?

The Met certainly has the Government's backing, as can be seen by the increase in the numbers. The day–to–day deployment of forces is a matter for the Commissioner of Police. I am satisfied that he understands the necessity of having policemen on the beat. I believe that, with the increased numbers that we have provided, the number of policemen out on the streets is greater than when the Labour Government left office.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the workings of the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and if he will make a statement.

The operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 is reviewed annually. The review of its operation in 1990 has been undertaken by Viscount Colville of Culross and his report will be published shortly.

Does not this morning's incident in Whitehall, not to mention the threats emanating from Iraq, vividly illustrate the need for the Act? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that the Opposition, who aspire to government, have not only failed to support this legislation but consistently opposed it? Will he join me in urging them, even at this stage, to change their attitude?

The House will be aware that I am making a statement later this afternoon about the incident, so I shall not say any thing about it now. I am clear that at this moment we should not lower our defences against terrorism. I shall shortly be bringing before the House powers to renew the Act.

Will the Secretary of State consider the introduction of a national identity card as a means of assisting in the prevention of terrorism?

That has been examined in the past and some thought has been given to having a voluntary national identity card. I can see no purpose in having such a card. This country has not had such cards, although they are common on the continent. I am not yet persuaded that that is the best way to pursue the matter. The hon. Gentleman holds up his pass. He will realise that that is not a card of identity that could be used effectively outside a narrow area, although it is important for people to have their passes when they come to the House.

Bearing in mind our experience in previous terrorist cases, where suspects have subsequently claimed that confessions have been extracted from them under duress, why do the Government object to the use of video cameras when terrorist suspects are being interviewed?

That goes very much wider than the extension of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and deals with the whole question of procedures to be followed when interviewing not only possible terrorists but other criminals. At this stage I am not prepared to make a statement on that.

May I put it to the Home Secretary that this is the worst possible moment for any hon. Member to attempt to drive wedges between the democratically elected parties? This is a time for a united condemnation of terrorism and to drive wedges between the democratically elected parties can only comfort the terrorists as they notice the squalid tactics of some Conservative Members.

I am sure that the whole House and the whole nation will condemn acts of terrorism. However, condemnation is not enough. We have to be prepared to take action and the Prevention of Terrorism Act gives us certain powers which I am satisfied any Government require. We will shortly bring forward proposals to extend those powers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about border control between Britain and other European Community countries.

We are continuing to take part in discussions with, our Community partners about free movement of people in the light of the single European market. We have made it clear that our participation in those discussions does not in any way weaken our resolve to retain necessary frontier checks.

Why do not the Government agree to withdraw all border checks between Britain and the other Community countries? Does my hon. Friend really think that such checks fulfil any useful function?

We have streamlined entry for EC citizens, who pass with the minimum of delay, having demonstrated by the production of a passport or an identity card that they are EC nationals. We must certainly require continuing checks to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, other crimes and immigration by third–country nationals. We intend to keep those controls.

I welcome the Minister's positive answer, but will he support the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in resisting attempts by the Government of the Republic to remove military checkpoints, which are for the protection of people in Northern Ireland?

If that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I endorse it with enthusiasm.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that now that so many other EC countries are being threatened by massive immigration from northern Africa, they are moving towards the position that the British Government have adopted on the need for border controls?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. There is great pressure from migration from all parts of the world into western Europe and all western European and north American countries have similar problems.

Is the Minister aware that border controls, as well as terrorism, drugs and police co–operation, are considered by the Trevi group of Ministers? Is he also aware that for a long time there has been deep concern that the Trevi group is not accountable to the House? The Labour party welcomes as a step in the right direction the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the accountability of the Trevi group, but it is disappointed that the Home Secretary did not make a statement to the House after the Trevi meeting that he attended on 22 January. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed in practice to making the Trevi group fully accountable to the House?

It is the Home Secretary who is accountable to the House, not any international grouping. That is a constitutional impossibility. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did what his predecessors have always done: he gave a written answer to a question that was put to him to enable him to report on the outcome of the Trevi meeting. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had substantial issues to report, he would come to the House to do so in person.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to enhance the expedition with which claims to immigration rights are resolved.

The immigration and nationality department is required to meet a rising demand for its services. Every effort is being made to deal with the work expeditiously. Improvements in efficiency have been made in many areas and additional resources are being provided for the next financial year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the procedures involved in the cases of alleged illegal immigrants, including various forms of appeal, can mean that an alleged illegal immigrant can wait some months, or even up to a year, before a final decision is reached? As what is at issue in most cases is a matter of fact, can nothing be done to speed the process?

I am concerned about the substantial delays in the department which are growing because of the number of applications for settlement here and for entry for various purposes which involve not only adjudication but determination by tribunals. That takes a long time. It is made all the more difficult by the matters referred to briefly in the previous question. We are facing an unprecedented increase in the number of applications for political asylum in Britain which is delaying the process. I shall be coming to the House with proposals to deal with that in the near future.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, in addition to lengthy delays between hearings and appeals, there are often administrative mix–ups, such as that involving my constituent, Mr. Mohammad Ifran? On 10 September, the Home Office was informed that his appeal had been upheld and it immediately told the entry clearance officer in Islamabad, but the papers sat on his desk for eight long weeks before he issued the entry clearance certificate. We are dealing with wives waiting on husbands and husbands waiting on wives. Eight weeks is a long time to wait after one has already waited for two years.

I will look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although I believe that the issuing department in that instance was the Foreign Office. I hope that administrative mistakes will be avoided wherever possible, but the Croydon office has a massive amount of work. It receives 1,000 visits every day from people wanting to change the conditions of their stay in this country. That work alone—5,000 personal visits a week and many thousands of telephone calls in addition—represents a huge administrative task.

Are the British Government and the other Governments of western Europe ready for the huge wave of immigration that is bound to emanate from Russia? At present, the border between Poland and Russia is manned only by Russian border guards and there are plans to remove even them. Poland expects that millions of Russian emigrants will not remain in Poland, but will head across Europe.

There are movements of population across the world—and particularly across Europe—that we have not experienced, literally, for centuries. There is a strong movement of people from the Maghreb across the Mediterranean to southern Europe and the potential of a large movement from Russia in particular. At a conference that I attended recently, a Russian Minister said that 6 million or 7 million Russians will want to move to Europe once they get passports. He said that the Helsinki accord, with its concept of open frontiers, will allow them to do so. I pointed out to him that open frontiers allow people to move to and fro, but do not entitle them to settle in the countries to which they move. We and the rest of Europe will have to address that major problem during the next decade.

Although the Home Office is refusing entry applications more quickly then ever, appeals against such refusals are taking longer to process than in the past. That is often a result of the Home Office's initial statement of refusal taking six months to prepare. Can the Home Secretary do something to speed that up?

As I said, I will bring before the House proposals to deal specifically with political asylum, applications for which are currently running at several hundred a week. In addition, we have secured from the Treasury in the Public Expenditure Survey Committee settlement an additional £10 million for 1991–92 which will bring the budget for that part of the Home Office up to £108 million. That will allow for the recruitment of another 200 civil servants to deal with normal immigration work.

Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern among Conservative Members about the massive increase in applications for political asylum in the United Kingdom, given that the vast majority of those cases—although not all—are bogus? Does he agree that it would be useful to streamline the application procedure, so that they can be turned round much more quickly and a message sent abroad that Britain is not a soft touch?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend touches on an important matter. The number of applications for political asylum used to be in the region of 2,000 to 3,000 a year, but last year the figure was nearer 25,000. Although we must always provide a refuge for those who flee their countries because of a well–founded fear of persecution, many who apply for political asylum are nothing more than economic migrants who would prefer to live in western Europe or in our country rather than their own. That was not the intention behind the refugee convention.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of television licence fees for people of pensionable age.

Most pensioners pay the same as other people: £71 for a colour licence and £24 for a black and white licence. My right hon. Friend announced on 14 January that we would hold the next increase 3 per cent. below the retail prices index figure that is used to set state pensions.

Most pensioners believe that the rules introduced in May 1988 discriminate unfairly between pensioners, most of whom enjoy nowhere near the level of income of those who receive wages and salaries. Would not it be better to sweep away the bureaucratic and nonsensical rules and introduce a standard flat fee of, say, £5? Many pensioners feel that they have been discarded and forgotten by the Government in many ways. Many of them fought for this country in the 1939–45 war and they feel that they have been very unjustly dealt with.

The cost of giving pensioners free television licences, or of charging them only £5, would be very large. It would need to be met by the rest of the licence payers, many of whom are much poorer than some pensioners, so that would hardly be fair. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, and who suggested that any assistance to pensioners should, at the very least, be selective. That hon. Gentleman is on the right lines, but he should go further and agree that if extra resources are available, they should be directed at pensioners most in need to spend as they wish. That is what the Government did a year ago when they provided £200 million extra in the pension element of income support rates. That is the best way to help, where help is most needed.

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that if the principle is ever established that the tax payer should pay for the pleasures of all persons over a certain age, no matter how rich the pensioner or how poor the taxpayer, we should indeed be on a slippery slope?

My hon. Friend is right. If we ever did that, we should have slipped a long way down the slope by that time.

We know that the Government do not agree with us about exempting pensioner households from the television licence, but does the Minister acknowledge the resentment that the present concessionary scheme causes between pensioner neighbours? Is he aware, for example, that if one flat in a block of 50 is sold to someone under pensionable age, the elderly council tenants resident in the other 49 flats will lose their concession? Will heat least do something to put that right?

If a scheme falls within the concession, it is foolish of the council to sell one of the houses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It is the right to buy."] No, it is not the right to buy. The characteristic of such dwellings is that they are available for those over 60, and that they provide services appropriate to that age group, so the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggests does not happen. Since the new rules were introduced—after the Kirklees judgment, which obliged us to bring in a set of rules which were justifiable in court—the number of pensioners who benefit from the concession has gone up rather than down. It is about 100,000 more now than it was then, which shows that local authorities can manage to organise their housing for the elderly to take advantage of the concession.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not all pensioners are poor and that, under this Government, pensioners are better off than they have ever been, but that they are many low-income families who feel that the television licence is unfair and should be scrapped?

I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is why my right hon. Friend is requiring the BBC to make do with a licence fee increase which is less than the inflation rate at present.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to discuss those matters for which he is responsible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last had discussions with members or officials of the Isle Of Man Government; and whether he discussed taxation matters affecting the United Kingdom.

Since assuming his present duties, my right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to visit any of the islands, or to have discussions with members or officials of their Governments. I met representatives of the islands on 15 January. We did not discuss taxation matters.

The Minister must surely be aware that the British Government have responsibility for the general good government of those islands, as well as for foreign affairs and defence. In view of the increased use of the islands for laundering drugs money and as a haven for the shadiest of financial institutions, will the Government, take a more active interest in them and exercise their responsibility for general good government?

In contact with the Bank of England, the islands Governments have improved their arrangements for such matters. Far from being marginal, they are extremely effective and bear comparison with our arrangements. But the islands are self-governing and have democratic Governments. That is a state of affairs with which the vast majority of the people of the islands are highly satisfied.

When my hon. Friend next talks to the Tynwald councillors, will he deal not only with taxation but with the scandal of the Isle of Man Savings Investment Bank, which has caused thousands of people in Britain, including my constituent Gwen Lamb to lose their life savings? Eight years later, the people responsible for that fraud are still walking free in the Isle of Man, and no one is doing anything about it. The Government have a moral responsibility for the legal aspects. May we look to the Government to ensure that some compensation along the lines of that made in the Barlow Clowes case is urged upon the Isle of Man so that the people affected do not have to suffer any longer?

As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Manx Government suggested to the Tynwald that there should be a scheme of compensation once the inspector's report was available. The Director of Public Prosecutions in this country asked that the report should not be made public until he had completed all his inquiries. I understand that he has not yet completed all his inquiries. However, I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety on the part of his constituent, so I will bring his inquiry to the attention of the Government of the Isle of Man and make sure that they are well aware of his feelings on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total acreage of farmland in the ownership of the prison department or within its management.

Some 8,600 acres of the prison estate are framed for production.

As it is more than three and a half years since the National Audit Office published its report on the prison farms, could my right hon. Friend make a statement to the House on what progress has been made? Is she aware that the report particularly highlighted the acceptable and unavoidable inefficiency costs of prison farms? Can she place in the Library figures for the yield per acre expressed in produce and income terms?

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the survey was completed some two years ago. The net outcome was a conclusion that the prison farm service is a cost effective and good service. It is more cost effective to run the service this way rather than any other way. He will also be glad to know that some £2 million of income is generated by the farms over and above the supplies with which they support the prisons.

Why does the prison department own 8,600 acres of farmland?

That is a matter which my hon. Friend may contemplate by considering the history of the prison farm service. It was always considered useful for the prison department to own farmland in order to make supplies available to the prisons and to provide work for prison inmates.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi citizens have been deported or told to leave the United Kingdom since the start of the current Gulf crisis.

One hundred and sixty two Iraqi citizens have been served with notices of intention to deport them on the grounds of national security since 2 August 1990. Of these, three have been deported and 77 have left the United Kingdom voluntarily.

Does the last night's welcome release of four detainees make the Home Secretary think that other people of Arab origin, including Iraqis, may be being detained and threatened with deportation when some of them have had a long–standing record of opposing Saddam Hussein's regime, even before the invasion of Kuwait? Bearing in mind the inadequacies of the existing advisory procedures through the so-called three wise men, is not there a distinct danger during a war which is supposed to be about the restoration of human rights that the British Government may deprive many innocent people of their basic human rights in a way similar to the disgraceful detention of many people in the Italian community during the last world war?

My first priority as Home Secretary must be the security and safety of the people of our country. Saddam Hussein has made a general threat of terrorism. He has subjected some of his own people to terrorist attacks, he has subjected the people of Kuwait to terrorist attacks since 2 August and he has threatened terrorist attacks across the world. In those circumstances, when I receive advice I have to act and I believe that anybody holding my office would have acted as I have done. As to the inquiry appeal procedure, the system is working and I believe that it is working correctly.

"The maintenance of national security underpins and is the foundation of all our civil liberties."

Bearing in mind the enormous difficulties, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on getting the balance exactly right—obliging the serious security risks to leave the country, but maintaining human rights in the other areas where there is at least a question mark? That emphasises once again that our quarrel is exclusively with Saddam Hussein and his entourage, and not with the people of Iraq.

Yes, I would stress that very strongly. We estimate that there are about 10,000 Iraqi citizens living in this country. The great bulk of those people loathe Saddam Hussein. In fact, they fled from Iraq and would want to go back only if he ceased to govern that country. Therefore, I do not believe, as some people have impressed upon me, that there should be general rights of internment. That would not be at all appropriate. I have to act against certain people when I receive certain advice; I believe that I have acted correctly and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

While recognising the paramountcy of the Home Secretary's obligation in this situation to put the security of our country first, may I ask him to take a very close personal interest in individual cases so that those who are subject to these quite extraordinary procedures may know that the facts are being properly examined at the highest level of government?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. These matters are not taken lightly. I look at each case individually and I consider the advice that comes from various sources, including the panel of inquiry. This is a very grave and serious responsibility for anyone holding my office. One does not want people to be detained or deported unless there is good excuse.

Does my right hon. Friend have any flexibility when it comes to the destination of a person being deported as having been shown to be a risk to United Kingdom national security? If no country is willing to take the deportee, can the Home Secretary give that person the option of staying in detention in the United Kingdom? Clearly, there are people who might be at risk if they were sent, say, to Jordan or Iraq and who have reason to be genuinely concerned about their own safety.

The procedure is that I issue a notice of intention to deport. The person subject to that intention has a right of appeal to the advisory panel of three. If, as a result, I confirm the intention to deport, I issue a proper deportation notice. The person concerned also has a right of appeal in respect of the destination. We are currently discussing with some people the countries to which they wish to go. Today, two have volunteered to go to different countries in the middle east.

Does the Home Secretary accept that it is the Government's primary duty to protect our citizens against Iraqis or people of other nationalities who may pose a threat to us? Does he also accept, however, that no matter what the provocation, we must set and maintain high standards? Does he agree that we would avoid the risk of making mistakes if detainees were told what case they had to answer and were allowed representation at the tribunals? Does he accept that, notwithstanding yesterday's decisions, it is vital to avoid mistakes that 'would result in alienating people of good will with whom we shall have to work when the Gulf war is over?

The friend accompanying a detainee at an appeal may be a person who is legally qualified. I talked to Lord Justice Lloyd yesterday and I understand that he has spoken to the lawyers representing several of the detainees. I am satisfied that everything possible is being done, but I ask the House to appreciate that where matters of national security are concerned it is always better to be safe than sorry.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the role so far of the Broadcasting Standards Council.

There were representations from various interested parties following the council's establishment in May 1988. I have received none since it was made statutory on 1 January this year.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Broadcasting Standards Council on the work that it has done so far, in particular on the code of guidance that it issued just before it became a statutory body? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that families want an absolute assurance about the contents of television programmes before they turn on their television sets?

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words about the Broadcasting Standards Council and the code of conduct that it published just before Christmas. Many people are concerned about the portrayal of sex and violence and matters involving taste and decency on television, particularly when programmes can be seen by impressionable young people. I believe that the council's work is very valuable.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7.,February.

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

When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the International Red Cross this evening, will he tell him of the utter revulsion that the British people feel about the treatment of prisoners of war by Saddam Hussein? Will he urge the International Red Cross to redouble its efforts to obtain from the Iraqis details of the prisoners of war and about access to them? Will he ask the Intenational Red Cross please to remind Saddam Hussein that the Iraqis cannot expect to benefit from the International Red Cross if, at the same time, Iraq refuses to honour its agreements under the Geneva convention?

I shall certainly be making those points, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did yesterday. I shall also be making it clear that in no way can Iraq's behaviour be equated with that of the allies in their treatment of prisoners of war. Iraq is in gross and flagrant violation of its obligations while the allies are doing everything possible to ensure that they meet their commitments under the Geneva convention.

Today's attack in Whitehall was both vicious and futile, since it will neither intimidate nor divert anyone, whether in government or opposition, in this democracy. May I express my relief at the fact that the attack caused so little harm to people, my admiration for the workers in Whitehall who continued with their duties, and my appreciation of the emergency services who responded with great speed and expertise? Today's experience further increases our fellow feeling for the people of Northern Ireland who have lived with such atrocities for nearly two decades. May I put to the Prime Minister my firm view that outrages such as the one today increase the unity and determination that we all share to defend democracy and defeat terrorism, whatever its source.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he shares my contempt for terrorism, which he has just expressed again most eloquently. It is clear from the timing of this morning's attack that it was a deliberate attempt both to kill the Cabinet and to do damage to our democratic system of government. It failed. In no circumstances could it possibly have succeeded. Many people in this country, including most noticeably those many brave people in Northern Ireland, have been the victims of terrorist attacks on many occasions. None of those attacks succeeded in changing the policy of successive Governments, nor the policies or principles of this House in any single iota—nor will they. The IRA's record is one of deep failure in every respect. That failure was demonstrated yet again today. It is about time the IRA learned that democracies cannot be intimidated by terrorism and we rightly treat it with contempt.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the present exceptionally cold weather, which is forecast to increase in intensity, some of our fellow citizens, especially the elderly and the infirm, may suffer grievously? Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider ways and means of providing extra help for such people?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary this morning to discuss the particular problems caused by the wholly exceptional weather. Severe weather payments have already been triggered in half the country and that may be extended. Our primary concern now is to ensure that vulnerable groups keep warm. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing later today that the seven-day qualifying period will be waived in view of the exceptionally severe weather. Therefore, people should keep warm—secure in the knowledge that payment will be made to those eligible even if, as forecast, the cold weather lasts only a few days. Payment will also be made at the enhanced rate of £6 per week to reflect higher fuel charges.

Will the Prime Minister pass on our best wishes to those who were injured in this morning's outrage? Does he realise that the whole House and, I believe, the whole nation will back him in his determination to ensure that government continues as usual, despite this morning's outrage? Does he agree that the operation of an open democracy necessarily carries with it some risks and that the proper response to terrorism is to do as he has done and make it clear that we will not be deflected in our policies or weakened in our determination to preserve the open and accessible character of our democracy?

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House in what he has said. Our determination to beat terrorism cannot be defeated by terrorism. I hope that that is fully understood everywhere. I shall be happy to pass on the right hon. Gentleman's best wishes to those who were injured and also his congratulations and those of the Leader of the Opposition to those many people from the emergency services who helped this morning.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Northern Ireland fully support what the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has said today? Will he also accept that they congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their escape today? Will he bear it in mind that those of us who represent Northern Ireland in the House often face difficulties when murders and atrocities take place in Northern Ireland and we cannot have the time of the House to bring them to hon. Members' attention as has occurred today? Will the Prime Minister consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and consider whether immediate action can be taken to ensure that the fair employment legislation is not used against workers supporting the war in the Gulf?

The whole House recognises that, alas, Northern Ireland has had far too much experience of the sort of attack that we have seen today in London. The hon. Gentleman will know of the firm opposition of the Government and their prececessors to that sort of attack in Northern Ireland.

Further to his reply to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North–West (Mr. Ashby), when the Prime Minister meets the president of the International Red Cross, will he confirm that while we insist that Iraq accepts its responsibilities, we will also accept our responsibilities with regard to others who are suffering because of our allies' failure to accept the International Red Cross and the Geneva convention? Will he tell the president that he will re-affirm that commitment to the Israeli Government in relation to their treatment of the Palestinians on the west bank and in Gaza?

All allies in this conflict are following the Geneva convention to the letter. That is, has been and will continue to be the case.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

In view of my right hon. Friend's great concern for the plight of Terry Waite and the other British hostages in Beirut, will he give serious consideration to sending a senior emissary to Tehran and Damascus—taking advantage of our restored diplomatic relations—and to Beirut to learn at first hand what more the British Government can do to obtain the hostages' long-overdue release?

We remain very concerned about the plight of Mr. Waite, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Mann and about the effect on their families of their long imprisonment. We already have representatives in Teheran, Damascus and Beirut and they are devoting a great deal of effort to securing the release of our hostages. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Syrian Foreign Minister Ash–Shara' yesterday and made it clear yet again that Syria will do all that it can to secure their release.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister's statement about the cold weather payments. As one who knows well the weaknesses of that system, why does he not use the power that he has to abandon the scheme altogether and look for a general uprating of pensions for all people all the time?

In making that point, the hon. Lady wholly forgets the changes that have been made to the payments available. She has perhaps also overlooked the fact that severe weather payments did not exist at all when last there was a Labour Government.

In view of my right hon. Friend's welcome words about the people of Northern Ireland, do not they now deserve a promise that they will never be removed from the protection of the British Crown?

As my hon. Friend knows, they have that certainty without their express wish to be otherwise.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that on 8 November last year, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing his autumn statement, he said that for this financial year there would be a budget surplus of £3 billion? Is he aware that many Ministers are saying that that £3 billion surplus has disappeared? If such a gross miscalculation had been made by a Labour local authority, it would have been subjected to poll tax capping and surcharge. What does the Prime Minister intend to do —sack his Chancellor?

As to the fiscal position, that will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget. As to the accuracy of forecasts, far be it from me to recall unhappy memories for the hon. Gentleman, but there were occasions when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was out by several hundred per cent. in his fiscal forecasts.

Will the Prime Minister congratulate those of our allies such as Turkey, and other nations that have fundamentalist Muslim insurrectionists and great difficulty maintaining political stability, on the brave moves that they have made in furthering the allied cause in the Gulf?

I am entirely happy to do that. My hon. Friend expresses the point most eloquently.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

May I share with the Prime Minister a problem that I have?

"No."

Order. Provided that it is a question.

It is not that sort of problem, anyway. A small gent came into my constituency office on Monday and said, "Why is it that in Britain we have the highest inflation rate, the highest interest rates and the highest balance of payments deficit in the European Economic Community?" He asked whether these were the problems of success or an indication that the economy was in deep doo-doo. I said that I had not the faintest idea, but that the next time I saw the Prime Minister I would ask him. So what is it—economic success or deep doo-doo?

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not the faintest idea, for his facts are wrong.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

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

Following the previous point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the stability of sterling against the deutschmark, despite the recent rise in German interest rates, shows increasing confidence in the Government's determination to bring down inflation within the exchange rate discipline? Is not that the best framework for a lasting and sustained reduction in interest rates, with the removal of the premium required for holders of sterling in terms of interest rates against other currencies? Is not that better for British industry than the cut-and-run tactics practised by the Opposition?

The stability certainly reflects, to some extent, our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, which is in no sense a straitjacket. If the pound were falling, we should not be able to cut interest rates whether we were in or out of the exchange rate mechanism. In due course, the stability that the mechanism provides will help and not hinder. The opportunity will come as our inflation rate falls.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that 1 gave some moments ago.

The husband of a constituent of mine unfortunately died in the Gulf a few months ago. As a result, my constituent and her daughter lost their home in Germany and require to be rehoused by the local council, which has not been able to rehouse them. If that is an indication of the way in which the Army treats widows, will local authorities be able to cope in those circumstances?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Army will always look at these matters sympathetically. If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with the details of the case, of which I had no prior knowledge, I shall be happy to examine it for him.