As the next eight Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to update the Home Office response to the 1982 report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on miscarriages of justice in the light of recent events.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to deal with miscarriages of justice.

On 14 March, my right hon. and learned Frind the Lord Chancellor and I announced the appointment of a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, with very wide terms of reference. It would not be right at this stage to try to anticipate the outcome of the royal commission, but the Government will be submitting evidence to the commission and will introduce such measures as are considered necessary in the light of its report in due course. In the interim, I remain prepared to consider very carefully any representations alleging that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Does the Home Secretary agree that if the Home Office had listened to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs 10 years ago, in which it stated that the Court of Appeal was incapable of dealing with miscarriages of justice and that there should be an independent review body, most of the disasters of the past few years would not have happened?

The Government accepted several of the recommendations of the 1982 report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, especially those relating to the Crown prosecution service. As for miscarriages of justice, an undertaking was given that the Home Secretary would in future be prepared to exercise his powers of reference more readily. That has happened. The hon. Gentleman will know that the royal commission's brief goes much wider than the findings of the Select Committee in 1982.

I very much welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that he will listen carefully to any further evidence on cases. Does he agree that following the Birmingham and Guildford cases, all instances where the prosecution depended on uncorroborated confessions must give rise to great anxiety? Although we welcome the royal commission, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not use it as a reason for delaying consideration of other serious allegations of miscarriages of justice? Will he confirm that where there is new evidence, especially in cases of uncorroborated confessions, he will take them seriously and deal with them speedily?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. While the royal commission is sitting, deliberating and formulating its proposals, I shall consider any cases put to me that concern miscarriages of justice and give them the scrupulous attention which I and all my predecessors have exercised. That applies to the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to all other cases that may be referred to me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is an undoubted miscarriage of justice for the innocent to be convicted, it is as much a miscarriage of justice for the guilty to be acquitted? Will he ensure that the Runciman inquiry considers that as well as the other matters to which he referred?

The introductory words of the terms of reference of the Runciman committee refer specifically to that. The purpose of justice is to ensure that guilty people are found guilty and that the innocent are not. I fully support what my hon. and learned Friend said. The Runciman committee will consider specific matters of concern, including the way in which the right of silence is treated by the courts.

Will the Home Secretary make it a little clearer than he has that when he receives new evidence which casts doubt on the safety of convictions, such as those of the people who were held responsible for the terrible Bridgwater crime and those of the Tottenham Three, he will seriously consider the evidence and argument without waiting for the outcome of the Runciman inquiry? Will he give the House an assurance that he will pay special attention to cases of that sort where serious allegations have been made against police officers or where investigations are under way?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He will know that since I have been Home Secretary I have referred to the Court of Appeal one convicted prisoner in the Broadwater case to see whether the sentence was still safe in the light of evidence which was sent to me and which I examined carefully. If additional evidence is provided in relation to any prisoner in Britain I shall certainly examine it carefully and if I am convinced that there should be a further hearing I will refer it to the Court of Appeal.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual estate security schemes have received Home Office grants in the last two years.

Home Office grants have been given for 135 separate crime prevention schemes to increase security on housing estates during the past two years. All those grants were made under the safer cities programme for the 16 towns and cities in which crime prevention projects have been established.

Is the Minister aware that the North Lynn industrial estate security scheme in my constituency, which was one of the first in the country, has had the effect of almost completely eradicating break-ins and crime? Is he also aware that the local borough council of Kings Lynn in west Norfolk, is setting up a town centre security scheme to cover car parks and housing estates which local industrial estates will also be able to join? Will my hon. Friend congratulate that excellent Conservative-controlled council?

North Lynn is an impressive example of what can be done. It is not part of the Home Office safer cities programme. As my hon. Friend implied, it is entirely the idea of the local authority, local business men and the local police. It is a good idea which has been well carried through and I hope that it will be copied by other local authorities.

Does the Minister agree that the amount of grant should be based on the level of crime in a particular area? He will know that Leicestershire has the highest crime rate in the country. Therefore, does he consider it necessary to increase the amount of money payable under the schemes—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary will allow me to ask my question without talking across me.

Would not it also be appropriate to increase the number of police officers in areas such as Leicestershire to administer the new schemes that have been implemented? Will the hon. Gentleman look again at the figures requested by Leicestershire county council and award the county more officers, because that is the best and most effective way of tackling crime?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the safer cities scheme is directed to areas, particularly inner city areas, where rates of crime are particularly high. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my right hon. Friend takes his decision on the number of police officers required for Leicestershire on the need as assessed and the priorities stated by the inspector of police. The figures for this year have already been decided, but I am sure that if next year there are good reasons for increasing the number of police, my right hon. Friend will be anxious to do so.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the secure by design schemes entered into by a number of police forces with house builders as a means of preventing crime? Is not it important that secure by design is dovetailed into the initiatives of the National House-Building Council so that most house builders can offer such improvements to potential purchasers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we can build out to some extent—sometimes even to a greater extent—the possibilities of crime in the way that an estate is designed, it will be valuable. That is something which the Department of the Environment bears very much in mind in its estate action improvements. It includes exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend is thinking of—lighting, secure doors and improvements in the design of footpaths and in layout—so that crime is discouraged and much more difficult to perpetrate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about reform of the law on Sunday trading.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consultations with retailers on the reform of Sunday trading laws.

Since my reply on 15 November to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), up to 23 April we had received about 570 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and about 362 against.

I have now begun my extensive programme of separate discussions with bodies representing retailers and other interests to assist the possible development of acceptable proposals for reform.

May I wish the right hon. Lady well in her difficult task of trying to find a workable compromise or solution to the problem? Does she accept that a key element in that compromise must be effective statutory protection for the rights of shop workers? Any system of Sunday trading that left shop workers vulnerable to pressure and to exploitation would not be likely to carry a majority in the House or, indeed, outside.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for my endeavours. I assure him that I am discussing any possible solution and compromise that we could reach with the relevant organisations, with my colleagues in the Department and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment so that the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised can be safeguarded. As he knows, there would be no sense in bringing to the House a proposal that would not be enforceable and would not command a majority in the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of deep regret that many people still believe in the nanny state and, therefore, do not allow the people of this country to have the freedom to choose whether to shop? Is not it time to change the law and bring it up to date?

My hon. Friend will know that, following the Auld report and the introduction of the Shops Bill in 1986 which would have met his criticisms, the House decided to reject total deregulation. It is because of that rejection that I am now trying to find a practicable solution—a compromise—to resolve the anomalies in Sunday trading, a compromise that will command the support of all hon. Members and be enforceable outside.

The Minister and certainly the Home Secretary know that it is precisely the ideological approach to deregulation expressed by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) that has put the Government in some of their recent trouble. The Keep Sunday Special campaign has produced some detailed ideas for reform in its REST proposals. Is she aware that a Harris poll shows that 88 per cent. of consumers believe that most of their shopping needs could be met by those proposals?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know about the Keep Sunday Special campaign's proposals and I shall, of course, study them carefully. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the matter with that organisation, but I look forward to meeting its representatives shortly.

Do I gather from what my right hon. Friend said about the 1986 Bill that the Government are still committed to a policy of total abolition of all Sunday trading restrictions, or have they come to their senses and realised that a compromise is likely not only to achieve success, but to correspond to what most people want—a special status for Sunday?

My hon. Friend knows that I am in discussion with many different people at the moment. Since the Shops Bill failed in 1986, we have sought to find a compromise between total deregulation and the current position in which there are many anomalies, which is most unsatisfactory and which leaves people uncertain. At this stage, I cannot give my hon. Friend any greater assurances.

Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the statements that she has made so far, there is still deep concern about the mess that the Government are in over the Shops Act 1950? [Interruption.] The Government are in a mess. Is she further aware that the Labour party is prepared to co-operate with the Government in a responsible, constructive and positive fashion to push sensible, amending legislation through the House at the earliest opportunity? I wish to ask the Minister one simple question—what target date does she have in mind for pushing a new Shops Bill through the House, or will she continue to dither?

I am riveted to hear that the Labour party, which introduced the Shops Act 1950, is offering co-operation with the Government. It has not been forthcoming in offering co-operation at any other stage. Frankly, I am not certain that I should want to take that poisoned chalice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the Government to step into the arena of introducing legislation until we were certain that there were agreed grounds for legislation that would meet the requirements of the largest number of people.

Dithering.

I am not prepared to go further than that. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are dithering. If he does not wish the Government to consult, that is an amazing position. I should be very interested to read specific proposals from the Labour party which would reassure the many people who have different ideas.

As a fully-paid up member of the nanny state, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the thought that if 500 representations are one way and 300 are the other, the best thing to do is to push the ball down the pitch?

My hon. Friend has been very helpful. I do not intend to push the ball down the pitch, but to continue my consultations and discussions with interested parties to try to reach a compromise.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether detective John Brand is still on duty.

No, Sir. It would not be right for my right hon. Friend to do so.

Will the Minister confirm that, so far, none of the officers accused of perjury has been suspended? Is not that silly, especially in the light of the seriousness of what occurred in relation to the Birmingham Six? Is not it about time that the Government ensured that such an action is carried out immediately?

The chief constable of the West Midlands has asked the Devon and Cornwall police force to investigate what evidence there is against the officers connected with the case. When that evidence is available, it will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, not for my right hon. Friend. Meanwhile, it is entirely a matter for the chief constable of the West Midlands whether those officers are on duty or not.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reduction in slopping out in the three prisons in the Isle of Wight.

Work is already in hand to provide access to night sanitation at Camp Hill and Parkhurst and work will start at Albany early next year. Slopping out is due to end at Camp Hill and Albany in 1993 and at Parkhurst by September 1994.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent answer. Will not the ending of those degrading practices facilitate the excellent work of prison officers at the three prisons on the Isle of Wight in humanising some of the most evil men in our society? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how that work has been recognised by a number of improvements in our island gaols? Will she ensure that those who continually criticise the prison service are manacled to the facts for a change, rather than to their own rhetoric?

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I recognise that, with three prisons on the Isle of Wight, he is in constant contact with the prison service. I also support what he says about the extremely difficult job that prison officers have to carry out, working with people who may not be the most willing group in the world. The officers do a good and sound job and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that since "fresh start" they have been well recompensed for that work.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward proposals for reform of the constitution and procedures of the courts for the trial of terrorist offences.

We have no plans at present to do so.

Will the Minister consider having plans to do so? Will he look at the examples that could be drawn from the other legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom where there are procedures that would be of assistance in dealing with these matters? I refer especially to Scotland, where the inquisitorial system in pre-trial procedures would help to avoid some of the problems that have recently been encountered in England. I also refer the Minister to the procedures in Northern Ireland, where juries have been dispensed with in terrorist cases because of their inappropriateness. That has advantages in dealing with miscarriages of justice because the inscrutability of the jury verdict is not an obstacle.

Juries have been dispensed with for the present in terrorist cases in Northern Ireland because they are frequently intimidated there. That does not apply on this side of the water. As for the hon. Gentleman's general question, no doubt a number of possible changes might be considered, but that could most sensibly be done by the royal commission that has been set up to look specifically at the working of the criminal justice system.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the level of juvenile and youth crime.

The Government have several programmes to divert young people from crime. Some safer cities schemes focus on alcohol abuse and anti-social behaviour. Some youth crime prevention panels aim specifically at reducing vandalism and graffiti. We are also working with the Department of Education and Science on its measures to deal with truancy. Several police forces organise activities for young people in the summer holidays. However, some parents could do more to influence their children's behaviour and the emphasis on parental responsibility in the Criminal Justice Bill will encourage them to do so.

With those under 21 responsible for half Britain's crime and with young people so often being the victims of crime, must we not involve our youngsters more in crime prevention measures, so that they understand their responsibilities in society and are encouraged to believe that they can play an active role in combating crime, making for a safer society? Against that background, will my right hon. Friend warmly welcome the youth crime prevention scheme launched last week by Crime Concern and give youth crime prevention his full support?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The rise in crime committed by young people is very disturbing. It is a long-term trend. One has to do everything that one can to combat it. As he rightly says, one of the best ways is to engage young people to help to solve the problem rather than being part of it. The scheme that he mentioned—youth crime prevention panels—and the work of Crime Concern are important. During Crime Prevention Week last week, there were literally thousands of schemes involving young people in fighting crime.

Last week's statement by the Secretary of State that a third of all crime is committed by under 17-year-olds will have shocked many who are trying to come to terms with such a statistic. Will the Secretary of State support tomorrow my Bill on under-age drinking, which will make it an offence to drink alcohol under the age of 18 and will give law enforcement officers powers to enforce some discipline in our play parks and housing estates, to stop the dreaded anti-social behaviour of young kids who become involved in alcohol abuse?

Alcohol abuse is a serious aspect of criminality for young people and for people of all ages. I shall certainly look at the terms of his Bill, although I cannot say whether I shall support it. Anything that can be done to get the dangers of alcohol abuse over to young people is to be welcomed and some crime prevention panels do that. In some city centres efforts are being made to ensure that there is no open drinking of lager—it has now been banned in the city of Coventry—as very many young people were doing so. One must use efforts of that sort to try to reduce the attraction of alcohol to youngsters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned that 50 per cent. of all crime is now carried out by juveniles. Is not it apparent that the soft approach that has been advocated by the so-called experts for years has patently failed, that the day that we abolished approved schools and borstals was a sad one for this country arid that we should look back to it?

Let me make it clear that some juveniles certainly have to be held in custody because of the nature of their crimes, their inherent violence and the threat that they pose to society. In the past four or five years the number of juveniles—14 to 16-year-olds—held in custody each year has declined from about 6,000 to 2,000 because we believe that it is easier to help them grow out of crime if they are kept out of custody. I assure my hon. Friend that the different alternative sentences now available must be administered in a tough and realistic way. They must not be seen as a soft option. Those young people who have to be locked up should certainly continue to be locked up.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that a large proportion of the crimes committed by juveniles is associated with motor cars? In the light of that, why will not the Government limit the sale of duplicate and skeleton keys to those who can demonstrate a legitimate use for them?

First, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is true that a large amount of juvenile crime, especially among young males, is associated with motor cars. Indeed, the motor car is involved in some 24 per cent. of all crimes. The evidence that we have from a wide survey is that there is little use of skeleton keys in breaking into, and stealing, cars. The youngsters who get up to these practices have simpler tools and have become experienced in breaking into cars. That is one of the reasons why yesterday I met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Next week, I am seeing the car manufacturers to encourage them to design cars in a way that makes them safer and more secure.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the prison building programme.

My right hon. Friend and I are reviewing the prison service estate. We hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions later this year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the continuing uncertainty about what will be done with the sites is causing considerable concern among those who live close to the sites? Therefore, will she undertake to clear up the uncertainty at the earliest possible moment, rather than later this year? In the case of the site at Ashford in Middlesex, while local people are grateful for the short-term help that has been given, will she take the opportunity this afternoon to put them out of their misery and announce that she no longer requires that site?

As my hon. Friend will know, we are undertaking the prison estate review as quickly as possible. As he will be aware, there are some 150 prisons. When we prepare the White Paper, we shall certainly seek to incorporate in the review the best way to meet some of the requirements in the Woolf report.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are about to agree a lease on the land at the Ashford site for the local authority for the next three years. At this stage, I cannot commit us any further than that because we could not then conduct a proper review of the whole estate.

Does the Minister have any plans to build a training prison in Wales to help to alleviate the suffering of families of prisoners who are serving long sentences?

That is one of the issues. We are considering, not necessarily a training prison in Wales, but whether people are sufficiently close to their families when they are put in prison. That is particularly necessary for young offenders. We are aware of the importance of access to families and relatives while young people are serving sentences. The matter will be part of the review.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the retention of the mandatory life sentence for murder.

The arguments for maintaining the mandatory life sentence for murder still seem to us to he very strong. Other matters were raised in the debates in the House of Lords and we will, of course, consider them.

Is not this a matter of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system? Surely the public are more confident in a system that uses a unique sentence to mark out the most heinous of all crimes—the deliberate taking of the life of another individual. The public are overwhelmingly in favour of capital punishment. They were given assurances, when capital punishment was abolished, that it would be replaced by a life sentence marking out the uniqueness of the crime. If that were taken away now, public confidence would be substantially undermined and the public would feel betrayed.

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the issues raised in the capital punishment debates before Christmas. Many hon. Members clearly expressed the view that if there were to be no capital sentence, society should show its utter condemnation of the appalling and dreadful crime of murder by a mandatory life sentence.

I refer the Home Secretary to the case of the Tottenham Three—three young men currently serving a life sentence for the murder of P.C. Keith Blakelock. Could I ask the Home Secretary about the case of Mark Braithwaite, which went before the European Court last week and in which the British Government successfully argued that he had not exhausted the internal machinery of appeals? If that is the case, will the Home Secretary now give us an undertaking that he will refer to the Court of Appeal the cases of Mark Braithwaite and Winston Silcott so that they can go through the internal appeals mechanism?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great personal interest in this case and I believe that he is coming to see me quite soon about it. He will know that I referred one of the sentences, that of Mr. Raghip, for consideration by the Court of Appeal when I received further evidence. If I receive fresh evidence in relation to the other two who have been convicted, I will, of course, consider whether their cases should be so referred.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Mr. Silcott has been found guilty not of one murder but of two murders and was indeed tried for a third murder?

I believe that was so, but that is not strictly relevant in relation to the Broadwater Farm case. If evidence is brought before me as Home Secretary in relation to this particular case, I will look at it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether Superintendent Richard Bryant is still on duty.

As I said earlier, it would not be right for my right hon. Friend to do so.

Is not public confidence in the police and in British justice undermined if police officers who may have committed serious offences remain on duty, in this case duty within the police complaints procedures? Will the Minister make representations to the chief constable of the West Midlands that he should suspend all officers who may have committed offences, until conclusions have been reached as to whether charges are to be brought?

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of adding to a major injustice, about which he is quite rightly most concerned, a series of minor injustices to police officers by pillorying them in public before the Director of Public Prosecutions has had the opportunity to see all the evidence that there may be against them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of crimes involving the taking of or from motor vehicles.

Last week I published a car theft index to draw attention to the vulnerability of certain models. Yesterday I met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Association of British Insurers to discuss car crime.

Will my right hon. Friend, while deploring the commission of 1·3 million thefts of or from motor vehicles every year and while urging motor manufacturers to improve the security of their vehicles, confirm that a large proportion of those thefts take place when the cars are left unlocked? What advice can he give the public to prevent those thefts?

My hon. Friend is right in that the record shows that in London, for example, 27 per cent. of all cars broken into last year were unlocked. Given the value of the car or the possible value of the various pieces of equipment that may be in the car, this is most regrettable and careless. We are trying to ensure that people take much greater care of their cars, but it is also up to the car manufacturers to put higher priority on the design of more secure cars, and some car manufacturers are doing this.

Will the Home Secretary ask his Department and the police to report on the effectiveness of car alarms? These ear-splitting instruments, which make the night hideous for the general public, have no justification if they do not lead to apprehension of offenders or prevention of crime.

There are many types of intruder alarms and car alarms and some insurance companies give rebates off the premium for cars equipped with them. I think that people should appreciate more keenly that a car is a valuable asset, worth something between £5,000 and £10,000. Cars are often left in streets, some of which are unlit, and that is an opportunity for casual crime.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the reasons why we have such a high incidence of theft and unauthorised use of motor vehicles is that those who take them think that they can get away with it? Will he issue a circular to the chairman of the Magistrates Association confirming that the penalties are up to £1,000 but penalty points can be added to a driving licence and the facility to drive a vehicle can also be removed? Magistrates in many cities, including York, are sentencing those without insurance to only one quarter of the penalties that they could suffer.

We can certainly draw the attention of the magistrates to the range of penalties available. The maximum penalty for taking a vehicle without authority is a fine of £2,000, six months' imprisonment, or both. Many of the people in young offenders' institutions and juvenile prisons are there because they have committed crimes related to cars.

The House will know how fond the Government are of a week of exhortation and glitz as a substitute for real policies. Rather than the expenditure of £4·5 million on a Crime Prevention Week, we need properly resourced, properly thought-through crime prevention programmes. Is it not a fact that the Government have dithered for five years, when they could have introduced decent minimum car security standards and imposed them on the industry? If they had done that, we should have a much better situation now.

The country may want carefully thought-through proposals on crime prevention, but it will not get them from the Labour party. The Crime Prevention Week last week was very successful, and I am not the least bit surprised that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are a bit sour. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are pressing our European Community partners to accept our proposals for a Community directive on car security. Any such measure will have our support.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on new crime prevention initiatives.

Last week we held the first-ever national crime prevention week. We launched the Home Office car theft index, which provides valuable ad vice to car owners, car buyers and car manufacturers on which cars are particularly attractive to car thieves. In addition, the safer cities programme will be brought to its full complement of 20 projects later this year, when those in Derby, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leicester and Middlesbrough come into action.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a positive response to recent crime prevention initiatives in Norwich? In particular, will he commend the work of the crime prevention panel, crime stoppers and the neighbourhood watch scheme? Does he agree that deterrence and sentencing policy should play a very real part in crime prevention, and that we should not calmly accept the present level of crime?

We certainly do not accept the present levels of crime. Nor, obviously, do my hon. Friend's constituents in Norwich, who have been so active in crime prevention measures. The value of Crime Prevention Week is that we have put the problem high on the agenda. There were about 5,000 local initiatives during the week. These will be valuable in crime prevention activities over the coming weeks, months and years.

Does the Minister accept that the reoffending rate is greater among juveniles than in any other group? As was underlined earlier, there is some evidence that, in the case of young people, non-custodial sentences are more effective than any other sentences. Does the Minister agree that, as truancy may be linked to juvenile crime, it is important to remember that truancy has its roots in the lack of appropriate education and training for many young people? Unless that problem and the rising rate of unemployment among young people are tackled, juvenile crime will continue to increase.

I accept the hon. Lady's first point. Indeed, it reiterates the Government's policy as set out in the Criminal Justice Bill that is before the House. It is true that the tendency to reoffend is greater among young people. It would be surprising if it were not so. The in-community penalties that are now being introduced are clearly a better way to proceed than were the actions of previous Governments.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the implementation of the POLNET computer network; and if he will make a statement.

Representations about the POLNET computer network have been received from members of the Hampshire police authority and from a number of my hon. Friends.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Havant district of the Hampshire police authority has conducted a successful experiment with a POLNET computer network over the past few years and now wishes to extend it county wide. For that purpose, it has applied for approval for £5 million expenditure over three years. Will the Home Office give favourable consideration to that application, which would save Hampshire the equivalent of the work of 400 policemen a year and help to combat the 22 per cent. increase in crime in the county last year?

Nationally, the equipment grant is up by about 25 per cent. this year, which is not sufficient, I am afraid, to meet all the information technology schemes that have been put forward, so we are currently considering a specific grant for IT projects. We shall not be in a position to decide priorities until the police national network for communications between police forces, into which the POLNET scheme would need to fit, has been evaluated later this year.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the discussions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the level of agriculture spending in 1991.

The Agriculture Council is currently considering proposals to keep spending on the common agricultural policy in 1991 within the agricultural guidelines. I hope that the issue will be resolved before the meeting of the European Council.

Does the Prime Minister accept that, despite the brave battle that is being fought alone by Britain and Holland to maintain the legal limits that his predecessor fought hard to achieve, Brussels will inevitably find some device or accountancy fiddle to break through, as has happened before? As the agricultural policy is causing damage to taxpayers, consumers, the third world and, now, to farmers, and as we are suffering from an uncontrollable protection racket which is riddled with graft, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to Brussels that it would strengthen the Economic Community and everyone else if agriculture were repatriated to individual member states?

I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall continue to insist that the guidelines are respected. I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to see the break-up and repatriation of the common agricultural policy. The danger I foresee is that separate national agricultural policies would lead to increased protectionism and considerable distortions of trade. I believe that our interest is best served in this area by common policies and by seeking to improve them. In essence, we need to win the match in Brussels, and that we shall seek to do.

It is outrageous that the British Government are allowing to continue a common agricultural policy that is costing every family in this country £16 a week as part of the policy of the Conservatives, who have handed over in 10 years more than £40 billion to the Common Market. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is time that the food mountains were made available to the starving nations of Africa and to help the Kurds? Instead of that, the CAP ensures that food is bought on the open market. Stocks continue to soar and the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in the forefront of the battle in the Community to impose guidelines and to prevent unnecessary agricultural production. The answer to his second point about food mountains being used to assist people in need is that I agree that whenever that can be done, it should be done.

In his consideration of United Kingdom agriculture within the context of the European Community, will my right hon. Friend continue to bear it in mind the remarkable contribution that has been made by agriculture to the rural economy? Will he also bear it in mind that farm incomes are now about half what they were two years ago and that the Samaritans have expressed grave concern about the increase in suicidal thought in the farming industry? Will he bear those points in mind at all stages because we must protect the foundation of our rural economy?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to bear those matters in mind. He will know that some of the direct assistance that we have been able to give within the common agricultural policy has been aimed at areas like hill farming, where there are particular difficulties.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

No.

We had better have the answer.

I made the mistake because of the tedious aspect of the regular questions that I am asked.

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 will be having further meetings later today.

Has the Prime Minister seen the letter in today's Evening Standard from the private secretary of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) which says that the Government's new local tax is

"not fair—grossly inequitable and hurtful"?

The lady goes on to ask why she should pay more for a small, one-bedroomed flat on her own in one part of London than the entire family of the Secretary of State for the Environment will pay in his luscious home in the west end? What answer will the Prime Minister give to that lady?

The answer that I will give to the lady is that she lives in one of the most expensive houses in London. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends need to make up their minds. They allege with one breath that the council tax will benefit the rich, who, they say, are Conservative voters, and with the next breath that it will hurt Conservative voters.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to examine the illustrative bills for the new council tax for those authorities where householders will pay substantially more than under the existing community charge for two people? Will he note, for example, that for the dearest house in Westminster, the tax will be less than for the cheapest house in Wellingborough? Whereas Westminster has benefited from large Government grants, Wellingborough has been penalised by loss of grants because it has traded profitably and passed the profits on to its charge payers. If I am to propose that the new tax is fair to my constituents will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation without delay into Wellingborough's position?

If councils spend at the same standard spending assessment, they will pay the same in each band. That is the essential equity of the scheme that we have proposed. Over 70 per cent. of people will be gainers under the scheme that we have proposed. Where there are losers, there will be transitional protection and, for people on low incomes, the generous rebate scheme. That is by far the best deal that the ratepayer, the community charge payer, or in future the council taxpayer, has ever received.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the considered view of the Governor of the Bank of England, who recently testified that Britain's deep and worsening recession is, in his words, "home grown"?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for he has asked me that question on previous occasions, I do not accept the proposition that the recession is home grown. There are a variety of causes of the downturn in world trade here and elsewhere and we cannot be immune from all those.

Did not the Prime Minister notice the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on the subject of the recession's origins? He said that, while Britain

"is in recession, Japan and Germany undeniably are not and our other EC partners"—

[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, who is not yet a member of the Labour party. He said that, although the economies in the remainder of the European Community have slowed down, they are not in recession.

Is the Prime Minister aware that that view is borne out by the International Monetary Fund and that Britain's condition is the direct result of the Prime Minister's policies? Why will he not accept his responsibility or, better still, take action to reverse the recession that he has caused?

If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the matter more carefully, he would have seen that the United Kingdom is coming out of its economic difficulties, while other countries are still facing deepening difficulties. He might also have observed that we have been in a position, since joining the exchange rate mechanism, to make five cuts in interest rates—four in the past 10 weeks. At the same time, we have seen an appreciation, not a depreciation, in sterling.

I wish that the Prime Minister's optimism was well placed. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer testified to the Treasury Committee a few weeks ago, rather diffidently:

"I think that there arc cautious grounds for believing we, somewhere about the middle of this year, may begin to come out of recession".

The Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the International Monetary Fund and anyone else with eyes to see, and who is concerned about the condition of our economy, knows that the right hon. Gentleman has plunged Britain into deep recession. What will he do to combat the rises in unemployment and the depression of our economy?

The right hon. Gentleman, who has policies for a minimum wage that will create another million unemployed, has nothing to say about that. With interest rates and inflation having fallen and being set to fall significantly further, and with a balance of trade gap narrowing, it is difficult even for the right hon. Gentleman to deny the improvements now coming about.

In the course of his busy day, might my right hon. Friend find a moment to visit the organ transplant exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall? If he does so, he will be told that there are 5,000 people awaiting transplants in this country and that current organ donation must double to meet that demand. In those circumstances, will it be possible to include an item on organ transplantation and the increase in the programme at the weekend meeting at Chequers that my right hon. Friend is having with health service managers?

I hope that, at my weekend meeting in Chequers, I shall be able to discuss with health professionals a wide range of matters and I shall endeavour to include that subject among them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, in a secret ballot supervised by the Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the employees of the North of England building society voted by 257 to 81 to join the Banking Insurance and Finance Union? The response of the management was to embark upon a programme of' intimidation designed to get employees to resign from that union. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy that employers as well as employees should be bound by the outcome of properly conducted secret ballots? Or am I being naive?

I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being naive. The strict answer to the first part of his question is that I was not aware of that incident. However, if it is as he describes, I can confirm that both sides should be bound by the agreement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

What would happen to the figures produced for the local council tax if we were to abolish capping and competitive tendering, and raise a higher proportion of local funding from local taxes—the policies of the Labour party? Would the figures, like those in the Labour party's unfair rates proposals, go through the roof?

There is absolutely no doubt about what would happen to council tax bills under Labour's proposals—that is precisely why the figures that it has produced are wholly bogus.

To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards receiving ecological refugees from Kuwait and surrounding countries into the United Kingdom.

All applications for entry to the United Kingdom are individually considered against the requirements of the immigration rules and in the light of compassionate considerations outside the rules.

Are not thousands of Kuwaitis now taking residence in countries as far away from the photochemical smog and respiratory diseases as they can, and is not the root of the problem that, frankly, Kuwait is so paralysed that Kuwaitis cannot tackle the oil inferno? In those circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider the advice from the Saudi sources that I have named that, with the Americans and the Saudis, we should step in and tackle the oil fires, as we did with operation Desert Storm?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point that he wished to raise. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government are treating the matter of the oil well fires in Kuwait very seriously. The United Kingdom industry, together with officials from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, are examining how best to contribute to the resolution of the problems faced in Kuwait. A number of possibilities have been identified and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will tomorrow lead a delegation of key British industrialists to Kuwait to pursue the specific proposals that have already been put to the Kuwaiti Government.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am glad that we have begun the debate early. The Opposition certainly do not intend to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. However, in the spirit of our proceedings in Committee, I hope that we can have a series of fairly short but substantial debates before we come to Third Reading.

New clause 1 is of tremendous importance to the Scottish environment and will attract a great deal of interest in Scotland. I hope that at the end of the debate, we shall hear from the Minister something of substance about the Government's attitude towards adopting Dounreay as a site for nuclear dumping. There is no doubt that there is overwhelming opposition in Scotland to that proposal. It would be no bad thing if the Government, who this week have made some efforts to get on the right side of public opinion, came out and said that they, in common with every other party represented in the House, will have no truck with the proposal.

It may be worth pointing out at the start of the debate what a lonely figure the Minister poses. This may be the only Scottish debate in which the Minister replying to the debate is the only Scottish Tory Member in the House of Commons. I do not know where the other Scottish Tory Members are. The mind boggles about where they might be. As our discussions proceed, I hope that there will be some evidence that they exist and have some interest in these matters. We are discussing a matter that may be peculiarly of interest to the Highlands but is also of great interest to all parts of Scotland, including several of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members. I know that one has to trail around a little to find any Scottish Tory Members, but in this matter the Perthshire constituencies at least are directly affected by the transport issues. We shall be watching closely for the presence of those hon. Members as our discussions continue.

This is an important debate, with four purposes. The first is simply to give an airing on the Floor of the House of Commons to the prospect of using Dounreay or perhaps Caithness for deep nuclear storage. I think that it is overdue and I am pleased that, by tabling the new clause, the Labour party has succeeded in having a debate that will be noted by all parties and people interested in the issue.

4.15 pm

The second reason for having the debate is to flush out the Government's views on deep storage at Dounreay and in particular to force them to defend their apparent willingness to trample upon local democracy. In particular, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us today whether it is the Secretary of State's intention to overrule the planning authority on the latest application by Nirex for 6,000 test bores in the same way that he overruled that authority on the issues of both the structure plan and the initial test bores. It would be helpful for guidance if the Minister told us whether it is once again the intention of the Secretary of State to thwart local democracy and to overrule the planning authority.

A frisson of excitement has run through the House as a second Conservative Member has entered. We all know of the interest in these matters of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), so we are not surprised to see him.

The third reason for having the debate is to state unequivocally that the possibility of Dounreay being used as a nuclear dump will immediately vanish with the election of a Labour Government. The fourth reason for having it, particularly appropriate in the context of this Bill, is to encourage—I hope that the Minister will join in this encouragement—the new Scottish Natural Heritage to express a view on this and other enormously important environmental issues, rather than steer clear of them, as has sometimes been the practice of the Nature Conservancy Council, for fear of offending its political masters. It was remarked at a meeting that we had with the Highland regional council yesterday, when some people were down from Caithness, that it was deemed very odd in Caithness that the Nature Conservancy Council is prepared to tell people where they can and cannot cut peat but at the same time desists from taking or expressing a view on the desirability of having a nuclear dump on their doorsteps.

The transport issue is also important, apart from the immediate impact within Caithness. This is where the whole of Scotland becomes directly involved, because part of the price that would be paid, if by any chance this were allowed to go ahead, would be that nuclear loads would be passing through Scotland on an extremely regular basis. There is no need to take my word for this; I have a letter from Nirex which was sent to Mr. Mervyn Rolfe, the excellent Labour candidate for Perth and Kinross. Mr. Rolfe had asked Nirex how many trainloads would be passing through Perth in the event of deep underground repositories being established at Dounreay.

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is not present to hear this information, but Mr. McInerney, the managing director of Nirex, was nothing if not frank. He said:

"Consultants acting for Nirex are carrying out assessments of the transport implications of moving radioactive wastes to Dounreay or Sellafield. Should the repository be sited at Dounreay, we estimate that about 15 trains a week would pass through Perth. Road transport would be used infrequently to Dounreay … Should the repository be sited at Sellafield, only waste generated at Dounreay would pass through Perth. This would amount to around one small train load per week."

Mr. McInerney went on to say:

"the likelihood of an accident involving a train carrying radioactive waste of sufficient severity for the release of radioactivity from a waste container is extremely remote."

It is only fair for me to place that caveat on the record.

I should have thought that the great majority of the constituents represented by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, and those in all points north and south who are threatened with the prospect of 15 trainloads per week of radioactive nuclear cargoes passing through their communities, would, to say the least, be disturbed by that prospect. It is not a regular trade that Scotland wishes to see. In addition to the security and safety problems that would immediately be created in Caithness itself, monumental problems of security along the route would be created. We have it on the authority not of any political scaremonger but of Nirex itself that that is the volume of cargo that would be involved if Dounreay were selected and approved by the Government for this purpose.

I was astonished to read in the Glasgow Herald of 23 January 1991 the headline

"Nuclear dump safety 'cannot be guaranteed'".

Once again, it might be supposed that this was scaremongering by some vested interest opposed to the selection of Dounreay. Not so. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote a little of the report. It states:

"The nuclear waste agency Nirex will not be able to guarantee that Britain's first national nuclear waste repository will be completely safe until after it has been built.

This was confirmed yesterday"—

not by a scaremonger—

"by a Nirex spokesman at the agency's headquarters at Didcot in Oxfordshire. The admission astonished Highland region, the planning authority which would have to consider any planning application for a nuclear waste repository at Dounreay."

I have no doubt that it will astonish hon. Members who are hearing it today.

The report continues:

"The Nirex spokesman said the company would select Dounreay … or Sellafield … as its preferred site for a national repository for low and intermediate waste some time between November and the beginning of 1992.

`After that we would submit a planning application'."

In this remarkable statement, according to the Glasgow Herald the spokesman went on to say

"the regulatory authorities, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Pollution, would be able to form a provisional view of the acceptability of the repository, but Nirex would not be able to present its full safety case."

The newspaper goes on to quote the Nirex spokesman directly:

"We will only be in a position to do that once the repository is actually built and we have managed to established quite conclusively if there are any problems with the geology of the site.

Only then would the regulatory authorities be in a position to inspect everything before granting an operating licence."

I have no need to embellish or embroider, because the case is here in black and white from the Nirex spokesman. He continued:

"With the present schedule that might not be until the year 2003 or 2004, and we"—

that is, Nirex—

"might have spent up to £500 million constructing the repository but we could still end up walking away from it. That's the risk."

The report continues:

"Highland regions vice-convenor, Councillor Peter Peacock, said yesterday:

`It beggars belief that Nirex could suggest going forward to a planning enquiry without considering fully the safety case, probably the most worrying aspect to the public.'"

Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be astonished if the proposition were that any Secretary of State should give planning approval, in any shape or form, for Nirex to go ahead at Dounreay on such a basis.

I was most interested to read in The Daily Telegraph of 11 March 1991 a report under the heading

"Nuclear chief attacks lack of information on dump's safety".

Once again, I am pleased to quote the source. Here too, it is not some over-enthusiastic anti-nuclear person, but Professor John Knill, chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. I quote from The Daily Telegraph report by Mr. Roger Highfield, the newspaper's science editor:

"The failure of British Nuclear Fuels to have a full safety assessment of £2·7 billion national nuclear waste dump ready in time for a public inquiry has been attacked by the Government's most senior adviser on the industry.

The BNF argument that safety at the site is a matter for experts rather than for the public has been branded as unsatisfactory by Professor Knill ….

Government nuclear waste advisers wanted a public discussion at the inquiry of the technical case for the safety of the repository, the location of which was expected to be announced later this year."

But by the time of the inquiry, according to Mr. Christopher Harding, chairman of BNFL, one of the principal shareholders of NIREX,

"we won't have the full safety case. There's a huge amount of work involved … We believe it is desperately important to get on. This may be seen by the public as the industry trying to pressurise it through … That would worry me."

If it worries Mr. Harding that BNFL and Nirex are seen as trying to pressurise the development through on that basis, it must be worrying to the people of Caithness and all who are living on the doorstep of the proposed development and along the transport route.