As Bills 2 to 12 have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to review the regulations relating to concessionary television licences for pensioners in sheltered housing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the need for legislation to provide free television licences for all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 28 February our intention to clarify and consolidate the wireless telegraphy regulations. The new ones will be laid very shortly. They will remove the "communal facility" condition for the concessionary television licence, which in practice has proved unnecessary to the operation of the more tightly defined scheme that we introduced in 1988. Since 1 January we have received 30 letters about free or reduced-price television licences for pensioners. We have no plans to review further or to extend the present concessionary scheme.

Concessionary licences are granted to some but not all pensioners who live in warden-controlled houses, they are granted to some whose incomes are well above income support levels, but denied to others whose incomes are on or below income support levels, and they are denied to those who need them most—single pensioners living alone without family or friends to visit them. Has not the time come to end such cruel contradictions? Will the Minister stop such random discrimination against pensioners and undertake to grant concessionary licences to all pensioners who need them?

Our scheme is fair because it applies to all those in local authority or housing association homes that are clearly within an exclusive boundary and where there is a warden at work for 30 hours a week. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should extend that to all pensioners. If we did, many pensioners would be enjoying a benefit which is not enjoyed by others who are very much worse off. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) recognised that when he made it clear last week that the concessionary scheme should not apply to all pensioners. He was talking about a scheme that extends to those who are least well-off. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I hear chuntering, should address their questions to their own Front-Bench spokesmen.

I do not have any problem with that. I addressed questions to Members on my Front Bench when the Labour party was in power and I shall do it again when we return to power after the general election.

The hon. Gentleman has shown why the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has such difficulty drawing up a scheme that he can agree with his Front Bench, let alone the rest of the Labour party. The scheme that we have is carefully constructed to enable people in the original scheme—those in local authority homes with some warden control—to have the concession, and there it remains.

To illustrate my question to my hon. Friend may I draw his attention to one of my constituents, Mr. Rushton? Perhaps he can visualise Mr. Rushton, who lives in a high-rise block of flats in the middle of Heathtown in Wolverhampton in which many other elderly people live. He has a concierge on duty to look after his needs. Next door——

Order. Could we have a question about it, please?

I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Next door are two high-rise blocks of flats, Tremont house and Lincoln house, which have wardens. People in the two blocks of flats next door to Mr. Rushton have £5 television licences, but the elderly people in the adjacent building, Longfield house, have to pay the full price because they have no warden. Does not he think that there is a ridiculous anomaly in that system and will he investigate it?

Whichever way one draws up a scheme, there will be someone on the wrong side of the rules. The rules enable local authorities so to organise their provision for the elderly that they can come into the scheme. That is why, since the scheme was introduced in 1988, more people enjoy the concessionary licence than before. It is quite possible for local authorities to organise themselves within the scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of licence fees is directly related to the cost of the provision of broadcasting services by the BBC? Is he fully satisfied that we are getting the correct value for money from that organisation, or does he agree with some industrialists that the costs should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and some of the waste sorted out?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary allowed the BBC to increase its licence fee by less than the retail prices index for the coming year, because he took on board suggestions that there was scope for the BBC to increase its efficiency. No doubt by addressing itself to that, the BBC will be able to make further savings in due course.

Will the Minister confirm that in the coming changes in the regulations, which have been announced, he will deal with the case of my constituent who is in a block of properties that were otherwise council-tenanted? Under the right to buy, a flat was bought and then sold to someone under pensionable age, so all the people in the block lost that concession. Will the changes at least end that anomaly? Does the Minister understand that Labour will exempt low-income groups, including pensioners, from the licence fee and raise the cash to do so by ensuring that the fee is paid for each set in a hotel or other commercial premises?

That is the suggestion at the moment. I wonder whether it will be the same when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have done their figures, because he proposes to increase the take from the retail and hotel trade from £5 million to £100 million. I hope that the trade knows that this extra impost is being placed on it. Labour will do that only by a massive increase in the fee, but I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman has not yet fully thought out the policy.

Will my hon. Friend take into consideration pensioners—there are some in my constituency—who pay taxes but who absolutely loathe television and do not understand why they should be expected to subsidise it for others?

As the regulations clearly say, those capable of receiving a British broadcasted programme must pay the licence fee, which goes to the BBC. That matter will come under review as we move towards the renewal of the BBC charter in 1996.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will carry out an urgent review of fire cover in West Yorkshire, and if he will make a statement.

It is for the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority to assess the fire risks in its area in the light of guidance issued by the Home Office. The authority must then determine what resources are necessary to meet those risks. The Government are concerned to ensure that all fire authorities conform to the minimum nationally recom-mended standards of fire cover and that they do so as efficiently and economically as possible. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services will pay particular attention to those points during its next inspection of West Yorkshire fire service, which is to take place very soon—during April this year.

Is the Minister aware of the damage that the poll tax is doing to authorities such as the West Yorkshire fire service? Does he realise that this year alone the authority—although it has wisely decided to save Sowerby Bridge fire station—faces cuts of £1·5 million, which will lead to the freezing of 100 posts and the axing of seven special firefighting appliances? Is not that disgraceful and does not it show that the Government are exercising double standards? When will they get rid of the poll tax, which is so damaging to both people and services?

The authority has been allowed a 19 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment for next year. That shows the Government's considerable commitment to the provision of good fire cover in the interests of people in West Yorkshire and elsewhere.

Why is the West Yorkshire fire authority being pressured by the Home Office to cut some of its services?

Her Majesty's inspector of fire services will go to West Yorkshire in April to carry out a full inspection of efficiency, effectiveness and the cover and needs of the fire service. He will report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Will the Minister also consider the problem of firefighting mains in West Yorkshire and other areas? Will he consider the possibility of an agreement between the fire service and the water authorities, so that the cost of an extra main does not fall on the poll tax payer?

That point has not been made to me before, but I shall certainly pursue it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will request the Audit Commission to undertake a comparative study of the efficiency and effectiveness of magistrates courts.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to an audit gap in the present arrangements for the management of the magistrates court service. We are considering how best to fill that gap, including the possible involvement of the Audit Commission, as part of the process of reaching decisions on the magistrates court scrutiny. At this stage, however, given the scrutiny findings, I do not think that a further value-for-money study would be helpful until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear his views on the scrutiny in an announcement which I expect not to be too long delayed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a survey carried out recently by the Audit Commission showed that productivity in our courtrooms can vary by a factor of 10—from 250 summonses dealt with in one session to over 3,000? Will he take into account the importance of a survey of not only productivity but the efficiency and effectiveness with which our courtrooms conduct their business?

It is perfectly true that the unit costs in magistrates courts vary widely from one place to another and that unit costs have risen considerably in recent years. The outcome of the scrutiny may lead to further value-for-money studies, possibly conducted by the Audit Commission, but at present there is no legislative provision, as my hon. Friend will know from the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982.

Is the Minister aware that it is more than a year since the publication of the scrutiny report? Does he realise that the Government's slowness in deciding what to do about it is delaying the implementation of a number of proposals that could tackle, for example, the serious problem of inconsistency in sentencing and poor cost-effectiveness? Will he be more specific and tell us exactly when we can expect a decision about the report?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems a little muddled. The scrutiny related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of the magistrates court system, which is a £280 million-a-year undertaking. It had nothing to do with sentencing issues. We are committed to preserving both local justice and magisterial independence in sentencing. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to make an announcement in the near future.

When he is considering the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts service, will my right hon. Friend look again at the Home Affairs Select Committee report on the Crown prosecution service, in particular the recommendation that draws attention to the efficiency proved by the Hampshire experiment, in which the use of information technology enables the police, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates courts service to be more effectively used?

My hon. Friend, who is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, is aware that I keep all his distinguished reports next to my bed for reference in the evening. I shall certainly dig out the one on the Crown prosecution service and look at the point to which he referred. The Hampshire experiment is excellent. It is within our grasp to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates courts service.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to introduce legislation to make anabolic steroids controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

No, Sir. The Misuse of Drugs Act deals mainly with drugs of addiction. We have decided instead on a range of measures designed to prevent misuse, particularly among young people.

Does the Secretary of State understand that that is a most disappointing reply, in the light of the fact that as long ago as November 1988 the Home Office announced that it intended to make anabolic steroids prescribed drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act? Does he appreciate that these drugs are freely available throughout the United Kingdom, in gymnasia and fitness centres, that they are acknowledged to cause damage to health and that in at least one case they have caused death? In those circumstances, is not there ample justification for making it a criminal offence to possess the drugs, or to possess them with the intention of supplying them to others?

I appreciate the great interest that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes in the subject. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has advised that the possession of anabolic steroids should not be an offence, since they are not addictive. That view is shared by our European Community partners. I am, however, concerned about the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that these drugs have dangerous side-effects, particularly for young people in training. We have decided, therefore, that the giving of anabolic steroids to minors—there is no trade in most of these drugs—shall be an offence. We are also undertaking additional research into the extent of steroid misuse and we intend to improve our testing and detecting methods. In addition, we are increasing our educational efforts, the intention being to demonstrate to people that those drugs can be very harmful.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the national competition of the amateur powerlifting association will be held in Derby in June and that amateur powerlifters feel very strongly that further controls are needed for anabolic steroids? Will he guarantee to keep the issue under review and to take into account the views of such valuable bodies?

Yes, indeed. It is irresponsible of those who are training youngsters to participate in such sports to provide them with these drugs. There is no doubt that they have harmful side-effects. We are taking strong action. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that as much publicity as possible should be given to their harmful effects.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he intends to make in the way juvenile or youth courts are organised, particularly in relation to waiting room arrangements and supervision once the age limits are raised to 18 years.

Responsibility for listing arrangements in magistrates courts rests with justices' clerks. There are already statutory provisions to ensure that defendants attending juvenile courts are kept apart from adult defendants. The Justices' Clerks Society and the Magistrates Association are being consulted about ways of arranging youth court hearings and we have asked the best practice committee to consider practical best practice procedures for courts to adopt in future, if these are found to be necessary.

But it is the Government who are changing the age limit upwards by a year in relation to the juvenile or youth courts. Does not the Minister accept that the message given to young people, particularly young offenders, in the waiting room and in the area around a court, is in some cases almost as important as the message given to them in the court about their activities and future behaviour? Does he agree that the message that they frequently get is entirely wrong and completely contrary to the one that society would like them to receive? Does he further agree that a mechanism should be devised—whether it be advice or instructions—to ensure that 18-year-olds and very young people appearing before such courts are separated, so that very young people do not get the messages that might be given to them by more sophisticated offenders?

I agree with both points. The messages that juveniles get from rubbing shoulders with tougher and older accused people who are waiting outside a court can be very bad. That is why, as I pointed out in my initial answer to the hon. Gentleman, we wish to move as quickly as possible towards ensuring that we use the procedures drawn up by the best practice committee, under the Home Office magistrates courts adviser, to ensure that court clerks and others separate younger from older juveniles. We shall also be building into the guidance on the design of court houses exactly the points that cause concern to the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's decision to create youth courts under the Criminal Justice Bill has been widely welcomed throughout the criminal justice system? On the likely bad impression on young offenders, does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible impression is made on them when they are held on remand in prison? Does he further agree that the arrangements that the Government have introduced to ensure that we have a better system of looking after young people—whether in bail hostels or in remand prisons, which the private sector might build—will be conducive to ensuring a much reduced rate of recidivism among young offenders?

My hon. Friend is right. The provisions for the introduction of a youth court under the Criminal Justice Bill have been widely welcomed across the spectrum—from those who describe themselves as penal reformers to those who want young people to get the punishment that they think they deserve. I also agree that it is important to end as soon as possible the practice of remanding juveniles in custody in prisons. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published his consultation paper on the issue two or three weeks ago. That, too, has been widely welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Amnesty International report on British treatment of Iraqi nationals.

I have placed in the Library a copy of a reply sent to Amnesty International on 18 February. I am satisfied that the action taken against Iraqi nationals is in accordance with domestic law and our international obligations. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited all Iraqis detained and has stated that they are being treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

In view of the recent heavyweight criticism that current United Kingdom law, which allows people to be detained on grounds of national security without being given a reason for their detention, is in breach of international law, do the Government have plans in any way to synchronise United Kingdom arrangements and bring them into line with the proposed international arrangements?

I appreciate the interest that the hon. Gentleman has shown in the matter in recent weeks. I do not accept that the action that we have taken is in breach of international standards. In certain other countries, Iraqis were bundled out very quickly indeed. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the procedures that operate in such cases. The advisory panel is headed by a lord justice of appeal and it has so far dealt with 54 cases. In his judgment on the Cheblak case, the Master of the Rolls examined the basis of the three advisers' procedures and took the view that the arrangements struck a proper balance between the protection of individual rights and the requirements of national security.

Have not we behaved impeccably to the Iraqis during the Gulf conflict? My right hon. Friend mentioned, for example, the due judicial process which must be gone through before any of them is ejected. Does my right hon. Friend recollect the threats, emanating from Baghdad of increased terrorist activity? Were not we wise to be safe rather than sorry?

I fully support what my hon. Friend says. At the outbreak of hostilities, Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis and other sympathisers across the world to take action to support him. We were absolutely right to follow the principle that it is better to be safe than sorry. Although hostilities in the Gulf have now ceased, it would be imprudent to believe that international terrorism, whether from the middle east or from other countries, will cease. We must therefore continue to be vigilant.

Is the Home Secretary aware that I, for one, totally accept that while we were in military conflict with a notorious terrorist dictatorship it was necessary on national security grounds to take various actions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am not going to apologise for that —least of all to those who did not support the military conflict in any way.

I have known the hon. Gentleman in the House for many years, dating back to when he represented another seat. I have always thought of him as an hon. Member who is not afraid to stand up and speak his mind on any subject, as he has done with great fearlessness in the past few weeks. I appreciate the concern that he and others have expressed about this matter. In practice, lawyers have made representations—sometimes directly to the three advisers, who have seen those lawyers if that was what was wanted. Representations have also been made to me by the lawyers. There is, therefore, some flexibility. I believe that those cases have been handled fairly—in fact, with impeccable fairness.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of people in this country will be gratified and relieved at the action that the Government have taken, which has ensured that no terrorist incident has taken place? Is he further aware that they will equally contrast what has happened to Iraqi nationals in this country with what happened to the Kuwaitis when Iraq moved into that country?

The despicable behaviour of some Iraqis during their occupation of Kuwait is not a standard to be followed by any country. We have behaved according to the highest standards. I appreciate that the powers are unusual and as Home Secretary I have therefore been especially careful to ensure that everything has been done to give those people a fair hearing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to review manning policy for the South Yorkshire police.

I announced on 20 December 1990 that I had approved 18 additional police posts for South Yorkshire with effect from 1 October 1991, subject to confirmation from the police authority that it is prepared to meet its share of the costs of those posts. Any application that the authority makes for our approval to further establishment increases will be most carefully considered.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that those 18 posts did not meet the application of the South Yorkshire police? Given the findings of the Sheffield Star, which I conveyed to him through the post in recent days, about the erosion of the fabric of the South Yorkshire police force, does he agree that those 18 posts do not meet the needs of that police force either? Will he confirm that, during the November inspection, South Yorkshire came out as the least resourced but the most productive of the family of six forces? My hon. Friends and I know what the problem is—it is not the Home Secretary, but the Department of the Environment. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek a firm assurance from the Department of the Environment that it will not allow the capping criteria to prevent the South Yorkshire police from manning up to his standards?

The South Yorkshire police asked for a further 50 police officers and we allocated a further 18. However, as I said in my main answer, it may be possible to increase that number later in the year. I am concerned that police services are maintained at a proper level. The level of budget of each authority is not my responsibility. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have set out the criteria according to which the police authorities should set their budgets. In a letter to Councillor Bundred on 18 February, I stated:

"It is now for each authority to set its budget. In doing so, it should take into account all relevant considerations, including its statutory duties, the approved level of police manpower, the Government's intended capping criteria, the need, as appropriate, for expenditure restraint and the scope for greater efficiency."

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if South Yorkshire encounters difficulties over its police manpower, he will be willing to consider whatever representations South Yorkshire police authority may make on that important point?

I will, of course, undertake to do that. As I have said to the House before, I have provided for an increase in police resources for the country as a whole in the coming year of 700 uniformed police officers and 1,100 civilians. However, I am well aware that hon. Members are interested in their own police forces and I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he has asked.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the South Yorkshire police authority told me on Friday that, far from expanding to meet its new establishment, it will be cutting the number of officers because of poll tax capping? How many other police authorities are similarly afflicted? Will the Home Secretary confirm the estimate given by the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that poll tax capping is likely to mean 1,700 fewer police officers than last year?

That is highly unlikely. It depends on whether the authority is a multi-purpose authority or a single service authority such as South Yorkshire. Within that context, I expect metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets to maintain operational police manpower at the level that I and my predecessors have approved. I do not expect that to be done by moving police officers into posts held by civilians. I expect police officers to pursue vigorously a policy of streamlining administration, cutting out waste and maximising value for money.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed the future of incremental radio stations with the chairman of the Radio Authority.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Radio Authority from time to time to discuss a range of matters, but he has not specifically discussed with him the future of incremental radio stations.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Will he and the Secretary of State note the success and popularity of Sunrise Radio, an Asian radio station operating in west London and my constituency? Despite its popularity, it is rather hemmed in by an inadequate frequency on the medium wave, which means that people living within the reception area find it difficult to receive that station. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Radio Authority to see whether successful incremental radio stations which broadcast to a loyal audience, as Sunrise does, can move on to a better frequency so that people who want to enjoy it can do so?

Sunrise Radio is to be congratulated on offering a varied programme which is proving particularly successful in attracting Asian listeners. It suffers from some interference, especially at night. Increasing broad-cast power might help, but it would be expensive. Sunrise should contact the Radio Authority—I understand that it has not yet done so—but I will draw my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of the Radio Authority.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Radio Authority, will he discuss the growing problem of local and smaller radio stations being increasingly acquired by larger conglomerates? The first casualty is often local output, especially local news, with increasing dependency on Independent Radio News which, however good it may be, is not a local news output. Does the Minister agree that local radio stations such as Sunrise should be encouraged? If concentration continues, it will create little more than another national radio station.

Local stations should certainly be encouraged. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the licence is given to a broadcasting company to produce a particular sort of broadcasting. If ownership changes, the licence does not change and the station is expected to continue the same output.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with chief constables about the law and domestic violence.

Chief officers were consulted over the drafting of a Home Office circular on domestic violence which was issued last July. It has been widely welcomed.

I welcome the setting up of domestic violence units, but when will they be open at night, when many women need them? When will there be enough of them to give access to those who require them and when will social workers be attached to them?

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in the subject. Domestic violence units exist in police force areas such as the Metropolitan area and West Yorkshire. There is none yet in the Greater Manchester area or in the right hon. Gentleman's area, although I am happy to report that the force general order states that all allegations of domestic violence should be treated as crimes—and quite right, too. There is also close co-ordination with other agencies, such as social workers and the probation service.

Will my right hon. Friend take five minutes to discuss with the chief constables the problem of young and juvenile crime in relation to the school leaving age? The highest crime level is currently among those in the year below the school leaving age and has been for 80 years. Would not a more flexible approach to the school leaving age allow those who wish to study to do so, those who wish to train to do that, while those who wish to play truant would not have the opportunity to do so? Our current rigid school leaving age is out of line with that of our colleagues in the European Community and should be looked at by the Government.

The school leaving age is not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that we need to do more about truancy, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to make an announcement in the near future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to bring forward any new proposals for the treatment of remand prisoners.

We intend to provide cardphones at all establishments holding unconvicted prisoners and we are abolishing routine censorship of the correspondence of unconvicted prisoners, except those in category A. In addition, planning is in hand for the provision of fuller regimes for unconvicted prisoners as new accommodation comes on stream and overcrowding is reduced over the next two years.

The Minister will be aware that the number of remand prisoners has risen dramatically during the Government's period of office. Is he aware that the Woolf report stated that conditions for remand prisoners. were often worse than those for convicted prisoners? That is disgraceful. Will the Government undertake to implement in full the recommendations of the Woolf inquiry in relation to remand prisoners?

I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in remand prisoners and I note her interest in the outcome of our deliberations on the Woolf inquiry. I am sure that she will join me in congratulating the Government on tackling the problem of provision for the unconvicted prisoner by providing 13 new prisons and 8,000 more places, and ensuring that bail hostels and bail information schemes are available to unconvicted prisoners.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that accommodation provision for remand prisoners could be allocated to the private sector and that the introduction of privatisation would be welcomed?

My hon. Friend will know that the Criminal Justice Bill, which has just completed its passage through the House, contains provision for remand prisons to be contracted out to the private sector. I share my hon. Friend's optimism that they will provide adequate and good accommodation for unconvicted prisoners.

Is the Minister aware that police stations in South and West Yorkshire will have great difficulty in housing some of the young remand prisoners, which they have not done hitherto, because of the budgets set for South and West Yorkshire police? The budgets were set in accordance with the standard spending assessment, which means that hundreds of police officers will have to come off the beat to man police stations. Will the Home Secretary assure us that, at this late stage and bearing it in mind that the police budgets in South and West Yorkshire have been set outside the criteria given this afternoon, he will give further consideration to the prospect of meeting the authorities and will assist them in maintaining the force that he requires them to have?

The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that the problems of young offenders who are unconvicted prisoners in police cells will be alleviated in the West Yorkshire district by the opening of Moorland prison, which will provide accommodation for young remand prisoners. It will take out of police cells a number of the young offenders who are currently in them, and thus save money.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Ashford (Middlesex) remand centre site.

We are at present carrying out a review of the prison estate as a whole. The future of the Ashford site will be considered in the context of that review. In the meantime, we plan to make the site suitable for recreation by local people and are discussing with Spelthorne borough council the detailed arrangements for this.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does she recall that at a meeting before Christmas she told Spelthorne borough council that the site could be made available for between five and 10 years? Is she aware of my recent letter pointing out that her local officials now say that it can be made available for one year? Will she please clear up the confusion once and for all?

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that a letter is in the post to him, following my discussions with officials on that matter. I think that he will find the answer satisfactory.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about traffic in London: and if he will make a statement.

I have had no recent discussions with the Commissioner on that subject. Regular contact is, however, maintained by officials with the Metropolitan police on a number of traffic issues.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party is still the party of law and order? That being so, is he aware that in the Commissioner's view, the effect of coach deregulation on his police force has been "horrendous", with the proliferation of illegal parking and coaches leaving their engines running for hours on end? Will my right hon. Friend please have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether it is not too late to amend the Road Traffic Bill to deal with such serious considerations?

I assure my hon. Friend that no resources are spared in dealing with the problems of keeping traffic moving in London: 2,500 police officers and traffic wardens are on traffic duty; in 1989, there were 2·5 million traffic and parking offences; in 1990, there were 160,493 wheel clamps, and special wheel clamps have been arranged for coaches. I assure my hon. Friend that we are busy in that area.

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

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.

The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being the first allied leader to visit the Gulf since the successful cessation of hostilities. When he spoke to our forces there, he spoke for the whole nation. Can he now tell the House when we can expect our forces home so that we may give them the heroes' welcome that they deserve? Does he agree that it might not be a bad idea to send out to the Gulf 10 builders to assist with the reconstruction of Kuwait for every service man and service woman whom we welcome home?

I can assure my hon. Friends that we are making plans for an appropriate welcome home when the majority of our troops are back. We hope to announce details of that quite soon. I am sure that the House will be pleased to have the excellent news that our forces will start to return home this weekend. The first to come back will be medical reservists, including 205 general hospital, which is returning to Glasgow. The first Tornados, their crews and support staff will also be starting for home in a few days' time. Some ships are already on their way home. The House will be especially pleased to know that 7th Armoured Brigade, which has been in the desert under the command of Brigadier Cordingley since last October, will begin to leave early next week and we hope that its withdrawal can be completed in two weeks or so. That brigade includes one of the Scottish regiments in the Gulf—the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will publish details later this afternoon.

I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his visit to the Gulf yesterday, but may I now ask him to turn his mind to domestic politics? Why is Britain the only western European economy in which manufacturing exports are falling, manufacturing output is falling, manufacturing investment is falling and manufacturing employment is falling, all at the same time?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but less so for the rest. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—but, alas, neglected to mention—the United States and Canada are in recession and growth is slowing in France, Italy and a number of other major economies. In our own economy, inflation is falling and interest rates are beginning to fall. The effects of our policies are beginning to be felt benevolently.

The Prime Minister has not even attempted to answer my question. He will not be able to run away from these issues for ever. As he has failed to attempt an answer, I offer him the answer provided to my question by the House of Lords yesterday—that the problem for British manufacturing industry is doctrinaire Government policies and incompetent Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry.

The right hon. Gentleman should read the report more carefully. If he does so, he will find a number of recommendations welcoming actions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken in recent months. They have advanced further since their report's publication and include, for example, the doubling of support for technology transfer and extra support for smaller firms. The right hon. Gentleman should be less selective and more accurate.

The Prime Minister must know that the two criticisms that I quoted are exactly the view of the House of Lords. I have no doubt that even the least literate members of the other place will regard the Prime Minister's answer as a bogus sham.

I had not expected to find such a literate right hon. Gentleman guilty of such tautology. The policies that we have followed are those which assist success in all sectors of the enterprise economy. The right hon. Gentleman forgets the reductions in inflation, on which his party had no policy, the change to one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the world, when his party would raise taxation, and a labour market surplus which has given this country the lowest number of days lost in strikes for 50 years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a start cannot even begin to be made to bringing Iraq back into the peace-loving family of nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power in Baghdad?

I can most certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. As I said in the House last week, and am happy to repeat, I believe that Iraq will remain a pariah among nations while Saddam Hussein is there and rules it.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister now turn to some specifics of the highly critical report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was published this week? Is he aware that the report makes it clear that there has been no support for industry from the Government's policies? The report concludes that there is a grave risk of having no British owned and based manufacturing industry as a result of present policies. Does the Prime Minister agree with the final conclusion in the report—that the Government's policies show no commitment to industry and no commitment to the national interest?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why manufacturing productivity grew faster in this country in the past decade than in almost any other major industrialised country. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a great deal of the ground lost in previous decades has been made up. We still need to be better at implementing the scientific discoveries made in this country and we are determined to improve on that.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the victory parade will include British Army bands trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall in Twickenham?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard my hon. Friend, even if my right hon. Friend is not at the House.

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

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the Gulf. Now that he has been able to see for himself the ecological consequences of the Gulf war, does he agree that it is necessary to mount an ecological task force almost on the same scale as the military task force that was needed to liberate Kuwait in order to deal with those consequences? Will he do what he can to ensure that the United Nations takes an international initiative to deal quickly with the pollution in the Gulf?

The action necessary to cure the pollution in the Gulf will require an international effort. Quite how that will be organised is a matter which is still open. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a cash donation yesterday towards clearance of the pollution.

Bearing in mind the Government's economic policy and the fact that some people claim that credit controls represent a painless cure for inflation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on where, under such a system, home buyers might come in the queue for credit, and how, in any case, such a system could be effective without the reimposition of exchange controls?

It is extremely unlikely that credit controls could make any worthwhile contribution to economic management. They are a legacy of the sort of economic management that existed in the 1950s, to which the Opposition seem keen to return.

To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss unemployment in Scotland.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Does the Prime Minister recall that during his last brief visit to Edinburgh he said that he would not forget Lanarkshire? Given the huge job losses that we have seen since then, including 3,000 in the steel industry, is not the Prime Minister appalled at the stage of employment training in Lanarkshire? Do a 32 per cent. reduction in funding, trainer job losses and lost trainee places, including places for those with special needs, represent the Government's commitment? Will the Prime Minister, tomorrow, meet real people with real problems or will his visit to Lanarkshire be simply a public relations charade?

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Lanarkshire working group has been set up to co-ordinate action to tackle the problems facing Lanarkshire on the back of the steel job losses that have occurred. The working group met for the first time on 11 January and will report to me around the end of April.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the admittedly serious problems in Lanarkshire and elsewhere in Scotland would become much worse if the House of Commons were daft enough to accept the Labour party's proposal for an elected assembly with tax-raising powers? Does he agree that such an arrangement would simply scare jobs away from Scotland?

I am in no doubt about that Were Scotland to have a tax-raising assembly, it would undoubtedly become the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. That, in turn, would drive away the investment which in the last decade has increasingly made Scotland more efficient, effective and wealthy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Nottingham.

I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Nottingham among them.

The right hon. Gentleman will be very welcome. When he comes, will he make a point of meeting mothers and children who have been robbed of £2·30 per week by the Government's failure to link child benefit to inflation? Arising from the deceitful words in the Conservative manifesto, which said

"Child benefit will continue to be paid as now",

The hon. Gentleman is making rather a meal of it.

Will the Prime Minister tell mothers at home of his own complicity in the drafting of those very words in the 1987 manifesto—words which cheated mothers and their children?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have an obligation to review child benefit annually, and do so. On each occasion that child benefit has not been fully uprated, those on the lowest incomes have been fully compensated or more through other social security benefits.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under his outstanding leadership we have become a united party determined to defeat inflation and the Labour party when the general election comes? Does he approve of all of us on this side of the House paying our community charge, supporting the prevention of terrorism Act and supporting our troops in the Gulf? If so, is that not in stark contrast with that lot on the other side who are busy scheming to remove their leader and his deputy through supper clubs —[Interruption.]

Order. I think that that is enough.

I certainly hope to be in sharp contrast with Opposition Members on many issues. I am delighted to see that normal service has now been resumed.