To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about initiatives to promote volunteering.

The Home Office funds a number of organisations which promote voluntary activity. For example, at the beginning of this month, with support from the Home Office and the BBC, the Volunteer Centre UK organised a highly successful volunteers week, on which I congratulate it. More than 12,000 inquiries were made by prospective volunteers on the telephone helplines alone.

I thank the Minister for his full response. Can he tell me whether the Prime Minister's Christmas message mentioned the importance of volunteering as central to our society? Does my hon. Friend see the number of volunteers swelling and the ways in which they assist in the community growing, as I do? Does he agree that it is a wonderful initiative whereby hundreds of thousands of people give freely of time, energy and professionalism and the Home Office supports their work?

My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister spoke about the importance that he places on volunteering. About half the population volunteer for charitable work at some time in their lives. We want to increase the number of volunteers, the regularity with which they do charitable work and their effectiveness.

I am tempted to wish the Minister a happy Christmas after that question. I welcome him to his new responsibility for bringing together charities and voluntary organisations and express pleasure that the Government are catching up with the Labour party in that regard. Does he agree that volunteering should not be regarded as a cheap way of getting a job done and that we need to respect the professionalism of volunteers as well as their commitment? Will he give an undertaking to expand the way in which the Government provide training and resources for the support of volunteers? Does he accept that there is a danger that the contract culture may lead to a top-down approach in which the Government may seek to constrain too tightly the work of voluntary organisations?

I believe that contracting will probably mean an increase in the use of voluntary organisations. Professionalism is extremely important. It is not a cheap way of providing service, although it is the most cost-effective way of doing so. The great advantage is that it harnesses the enthusiasm of people who want to do that work and provides a flexibility that publicly funded and directed organisations cannot, with the best will in the world, supply.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prime Minister has shown considerable interest in making it possible for a large number of young people to give one year of their time to voluntary service if they so choose? Does he agree that, by so doing, they will enhance their self-respect as well as learn that they grow by giving? Will he do everything in his power to encourage that initiative?

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of volunteering, where it is of benefit to the volunteer, especially those special groups of people whose self-respect needs developing. I refer particularly to former young offenders. Because of my Prison Service responsibilities and my responsibility for voluntary organisations, I take particular interest in organisations such as the Community Service Volunteers, to which I believe that my hon. Friend was referring, to ensure that they are developed further.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the Carl Bridgewater case; and if he will make a statement.

I shall reply to the representations that I received on 8 June when they have been fully considered, and after any necessary further inquiries have been carried out.

Is it not now obvious to the Minister and to all normal thinking people in the country that there is something seriously wrong with the conviction of the Bridgewater Three? In the light of the revelations made by the foreman of the jury at the original trial about the evidence that was put before the jury, is it not obvious that it is time for the Home Office rapidly to complete its review of the evidence that was put before it and enable justice to be considered by referring the case back to the Court of Appeal? The issue could then be brought out into the open again and justice could finally be done.

It is highly premature of the hon. Gentleman to jump to that conclusion. I assure him that we shall pay close attention to Mr. O'Malley's views when we look again at the case. However, it is well established that a simple change of mind by a juror cannot by itself have any legal significance for the safety of a conviction. The solicitor for the convicted man acknowledged that point in the recent petition. I repeat that we shall consider carefully all the representations that we have received before coming to any conclusion.

Does my hon. Friend recall that in the past few weeks one of the defendants in the Bridgewater case has been demonstrating on the roof of Gartree prison in my constituency? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the governor of that prison on his calm handling of the demonstration and to congratulate the Prison Service and the local police on bringing the matter to a close without injury or loss of life? Does he agree the proper way to deal with complaints such as that raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to approach the Home Office directly rather than demonstrating on or about the prison?

I congratulate the governor of the prison and his staff most sincerely on the sensible and caring way in which they handled that demonstration. I can only agree with my hon. Friend. We shall consider the representations that have been received thoroughly and carefully before coming to any conclusion on the matter. External demonstrations do not help our deliberative processes one iota.

May I put it as gently as possible to the Minister that it is obvious to most sensible people who take a serious interest in the case that there is something seriously wrong and that the case should go back to the Court of Appeal? There is also an urgent need for the Home Office to demonstrate that it has learnt some lessons from the events of the past five years. Therefore, the sooner the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal, the better.

I do not suppose that this is the first time that it has been said to the hon. Gentleman that his opening remarks were phrased in a slightly biased way. It is not for the Home Office to decide the guilt or innocence of the men. That is for the Court of Appeal. The issues that have been raised recently in publicity have been considered by the Court of Appeal in previous reviews. However, fresh representations have been made and we are going through them carefully to determine whether they contain any information that suggests that new evidence could he referred to the Court of Appeal. Of course, we want to reach conclusions as soon as we can, but it is more important that we are careful and exact in our deliberations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what consideration is being given to further changes to the criminal sentences available to the courts.

The Government are determined to ensure that the courts have available an effective range of measures to deal with offenders who appear before them. I will not hesitate to add to or increase the level of those penalties if the need arises.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that custodial sentences are essential to protect the public from those citizens who want to destroy or disrupt society? Will he condemn those, including members of the Labour party, who wish to leave the courts powerless to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, who are a growing problem within our society? Will he reinforce his commitment to the secure training units at which such juveniles could be locked up and kept off society's streets and out of the way so that ordinary members of the public can go about their business in peace and security?

The answer to all my hon. Friend's questions is yes. We are determined to take action to ensure that, in particular, those juvenile offenders who persistently flout the law and cause great offence to people who witness and suffer from their behaviour are subject to a period of detention. I certainly intend to pursue the objectives that were set out by my predecessor.

First, I welcome the new Home Secretary to his position and hope, at least for the sake of the continuity, that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors, though not for too long. Does he agree that one major cause of concern about sentencing is the disparity in the types of sentence given for similar types of offence? That was highlighted again this week by the so-called vigilante cases, some of which were treated relatively leniently and others, such as the Norfolk case, with considerable severity. What proposals will the Home Secretary consider to introduce greater consistency in sentencing so that sentences are handed down by the courts on the basis of established principles of justice and not as a lottery?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and I look forward to facing him across the Dispatch Box for a long period, so long as he remains on the Opposition Bench and I and my hon. Friends remain on the Government Bench.

I begin by most warmly congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved appointment. Will he recognise the value of the right of appeal against lenient sentences? Is it not a disgrace that Labour Members failed to admit their mistake in opposing that measure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and I entirely agree with the point that he made. In the teeth of opposition from the Labour party and other parties, we introduced the provisions that now enable the Attorney-General to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has still not admitted that he and his party were wrong to oppose that measure.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office when he now expects the royal commission on criminal justice to report.

I understand that the Royal Commission plans to publish its report on 6 July.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the royal commission was set up because of the considerable concern about the relatively small, but extremely disturbing, number of miscarriages of justice and the soaring crime rate in this country? It was set up for those reasons, but one of the main lobbying groups wants to get rid of the right to silence. Does the Home Secretary agree that getting rid of the right to silence will do nothing to solve the problem of miscarriages of justice, and may increase the number of cases? It certainly will not reduce crime levels in this country, as it will not increase the number of people caught. Does he accept that many Ministers like to use the right to silence and not answer questions in the House, but we cannot presume that they are all guilty?

The royal commission was set up because of a widespread feeling that our system of criminal justice was not working as well as it should and had become far too much of an esoteric game, and not enough of a vehicle for determining guilt and innocence, which should be its function. I shall look carefully at the royal commission's report when it appears; I shall not prejudge it, and I shall not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I want to see what the royal commission has to say on the matter. In due course, I shall announce my proposals.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two kinds of miscarriage of justice, one being the conviction of the innocent and the other the acquittal of the guilty?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who makes an extremely important point. Anyone who takes lightly the extent of concern in this country about those guilty people who walk free from our courts is actually behaving in a way which will earn them the contempt of our people.

The Home Secretary said that he would not prejudge the royal commission, but he has already announced a number of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Lords. Has he had prior notice of the views of the royal commission, or has he prejudged it?

We have not announced any amendments to any Criminal Justice Bill before the House of Lords, but we have tabled several amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House of Commons, because, in common with most other people who have considered these matters, we recognise that there are deficiencies in our existing arrangements which need to be remedied without delay. We need to provide without delay for the courts to be able to examine all previous offences and we need to remedy the inability of the courts to take account of the fact that offences have been committed while the offenders were on bail. Where we see clear and blatant deficiencies in our law, we will not hesitate to act speedily to remedy them.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the royal commission, will he bear in mind the case of the Harleston Two, the so-called Norfolk vigilantes? Is he aware that both men, who were sentenced to five years' imprisonment, had no previous convictions whatsoever? Will he discuss with the royal commission the need to speed up appeals, and will he do all that he can to ensure that that particular appeal is dealt with as soon as possible?

I understand the widespread concern about the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know that as that matter is the subject of a pending appeal, I cannot comment upon it. It is important that we retain the distinction between vigilance and vigilantes and we must not condone any suggestion that it is right for people to take the law into their own hands. I know that my hon. Friend will agree with that, but I know the concern that is widely felt about the case to which he refers.

While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over the same period?

No. Assertions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman do more to blur the crucial distinction between right and wrong than almost anything else. The Conservative party knows that that distinction must never be blurred, and we will not blur it or seek refuge in the verbiage emanating from the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to change procedures for determining the number of police officers in each police force.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a statement in the near future when he lays before Parliament his White Paper on police reform.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that chief constables will warmly welcome the freedom to take their own decisions regarding manpower levels? Is it not absurd that the knee-jerk opposition to the proposals so aptly shown by Labour Members will lead them to oppose a reform which will give chief constables the option of putting more police on the beat?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the present system, a chief officer who wishes to increase his funding effectively has to express his bid in terms of additional police officers, but it cannot make sense for the Home Office to determine how many officers each force should have. It must be up to the chief officers to decide on the basis of local intelligence and local needs.

May I express my surprise that the new Secretary of State expressed support for the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which we are currently in the process of seeking to amend? Will his support for more policemen on the beat be enhanced by the Government's proposals for restrictions on spending on police recruitment for the next three years?

Many aspects of the 1991 Act made a great deal of sense. If the hon. Gentleman is following the Committee proceedings on the Bill, he will understand how it is now to be improved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past 14 years police numbers have risen by 16,500 and funding for them has risen by about 80 per cent? That shows the priority that we attach to the police. Does he agree that civilianisation and other ways of putting more police on the beat are to be encouraged and that it must be up to the local chief constables to decide how best to serve the community?

My hon. Friend is right. In addition to the statistics that he has just provided, I am sure that he will bear in mind the fact that, since 1979, almost 15,000 more civilian posts have been created and about 6,600 uniformed officers have been released for beat duties as a result of the civilianisation process.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his timetable for consultation on the report of the Sheehy inquiry.

The report will be published next week. I intend to ask for comments on its recommendations by the end of September.

This heavily leaked report has caused nothing but public fear and concern. What benefits will performance-related pay and crime league tables bring to the maintenance of public tranquillity and good community relations? Is this not a privatisation too far? In their haste to privatise, the Government will do nothing but destroy the public ethic.

I shall certainly not comment on leaks of the report long before it has been published, but I hope that there will be no knee-jerk reactions of the sort that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman on the part of the Labour party or from any other quarter. I hope that everyone will recognise that we must have up-to-date arrangements within which the police can operate, give their best and be able to wage the war against crime more effectively. That is the purpose of all the reforms that we have in train, including those on which Sir Patrick Sheehy will report next week.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the Sheehy inquiry has been looking into the possible recruitment to the police force of Army officers who are unfortunately available as a result of the "Options for Change" policy? Does he agree that those officers could probably provide the high fliers that the police need so much? Is he aware, however, of the resistance of this idea on the part of the more stick-in-the-mud elements in the police? Can this matter be raised in the consultations?

I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. It can certainly be raised in the consultations on the Sheehy report. As to whether it is dealt with in that report, I fear that we shall have to wait until next week.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him to reopen the case of the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell of Shrewsbury.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations about the case from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), from the publishing company Simon and Schuster, and from Mr. Gary Murray.

With the publication of Gary Murray's book "Enemies of the State" by the reputable publishing house of Simon and Schuster, and with the reopening of the police investigation, should not the Home Office deal with the question of whether taxpayers' money was involved in what Chief Detective Superintendent David Cole, in the course of a three-hour interview with me, described as a brutal and callous murder? In the light of the answer by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), then Minister of State, Home Office, on 19 December 1984 in the Consolidated Fund debate, and again in an Adjournment debate in June 1985, is there not an obligation on the Home Office to take a deep interest in these tragic events?

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of the misuse of public funds in this regard, I hope that he will bring it to the Home Office. No such evidence is available at the moment. West Mercia police have always been willing to consider new evidence in this unsolved case if it should come to light. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office will keep abreast of any developments arising from West Mercia's review of Mr. Murray's latest allegations. I hope that it will help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that nothing has come to light yet that would cause me to depart from the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw)—when he was a Home Office Minister—in a letter dated 28 December 1984, when he asserted that allegations about the security services being involved in Miss Murrell's death were totally without foundation. The situation has not changed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office what representations he has received regarding sentencing; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a large number of letters expressing concerns about sentencing. I take those concerns extremely seriously. As my hon. Friend will know, proposals are currently before the House to enhance the ability of the courts to deal appropriately and effectively with those convicted of criminal offences.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the mounting public concern about children below the age of criminal responsibility who are none the less persistent and dangerous criminals? Often they are aided and abetted by social services, which enables them to get off scot free and to commit crimes again. Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, because of sentencing policy, these youngsters are acquiring a very dangerous disrespect for the criminal justice system? Will he, in his own words of a few moments ago, remedy the present situation without delay, for the help and protection of the public?

I certainly understand and sympathise with the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is possible for young children who are below the age of criminal knowledge to be brought before the courts now, if they are beyond parental control. The most important lesson that children can learn is the difference between right and wrong—a lesson which cannot be learnt too soon, in their homes and schools. I welcome the efforts of all those who are increasingly drawing attention to its importance.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, while it is critically important that we have a sentencing policy that both reflects the severity of the offence and punishes the wrongdoer, it is also important that we have a judicial system that does not inflict sentences on people who are patently innocent? I wrote to the Home Secretary some days ago requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgment, a fortnight ago, in respect of my constituents Lisa and Michelle Taylor. When will the Home Secretary respond to my request for an urgent meeting, and when can we consider in full the damning indictments of the conduct of the Metropolitan police and certain sections of the press?

Of course it is true that we must have a system of criminal justice that both acquits the innocent and convicts the guilty. The hon. Gentleman's request is under consideration in my Department.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a recent incident on the Weston estate in Macclesfield, where local responsible, sensible people unfortunately had to take the law into their own hands in dealing with a persistent young juvenile offender, who has appeared before the courts on many occasions but who has been released back into the community? Will my right hon. and learned Friend act to ensure that the courts of this land, which currently cannot impose adequate sentences on persistent juvenile offenders, have the power to do so in the very near future, in order to prevent people being forced—for their own defence and in their own interests—to take the law into their own hands?

I have made it abundantly clear that I am determined to make sure that the courts have the sentencing powers that they need to deal adequately and effectively with offenders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands. Members of the public can do a great deal to help the police without taking the law into their own hands. I am absolutely convinced that we will make progress in this area only if we can build an effective partnership between the public and the police, and if we do not leave the fight against crime entirely to the police. There is much that can be done short of people taking the law into their own hands. A part of that is making sure that the courts have adequate sentencing powers.

How can the Minister possibly talk about knowing the difference between right and wrong when a Minister gives a present of a watch to a crook, and other Ministers go round the world trying to get funding? [Interruption.]

Order. I can shout as loud as hon. Gentlemen. Did the Minister hear that question?

I heard it, Madam Speaker. I thought that it was an astonishing contribution from the hon. Gentleman, whose association with the Greater London council, which did so much harm to law enforcement, law and order and policing while it had some vestigial responsibility in this capital of ours, is well known and will not be forgotten, at least by anyone on this side of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to ensure that those who commit rapes and other sexual offences receive appropriate custodial sentences.

We are ensuring that courts have the powers they need to impose severe penalties for serious offences. The Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was mocked by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) a few moments ago—I hope that his constituents will know that he mocked it—gives the courts power to pass longer sentences on violent and sexual offenders in order to protect the public from serious harm.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that recent cases have proved that the Attorney-General needs the power to appeal against lenient sentences? He mentioned the opposition of hon. Gentlemen to that measure. Is he aware that the recent decision to extend to custody the sentence of a young man convicted of a serious sexual offence was greeted with enthusiasm by a number of hon. Gentlemen? Are we expecting a U-turn, or is this to be another matter to be "set aside" by hon. Gentlemen?

If the Opposition were remotely consistent in their approach, we might expect a U-turn, but all we have at the moment are parrot cries of enthusiasm when the Attorney-General exercises the powers to which the Opposition were persistently opposed and complete silence from the Labour party as to whether they now, belatedly and reluctantly, recognise that we were right to give the Attorney-General those powers. I thought that even today the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) might admit that he was wrong to oppose giving the Attorney-General those powers, but he sits there in silence, despite the fact to which my hon. Friend referred.

Does the Home Secretary accept, further to his answer, that, in the longer-term interests of society, what happens to sexual offenders while in prison is equally important? Can he explain, therefore, why, when 2,000 inmates are eligible for sexual offender treatment programmes, provision has been made for a mere 300?

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady did not respond to the invitation that I offered to her hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield a moment ago. Many people will have regretted the fact that she, too, chose to remain silent on that issue. On the question that she posed, that is a matter that I am prepared to look at. I am given to understand that the figures which the hon. Lady quoted are inaccurate, and I will look into their accuracy. I understand that we have a programme under way for dealing with the point which she raised, and we will pursue that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a link between the spread of pornographic material and the growth in offences of rape and serious assault? Is he prepared to consider strengthening the law to prevent the spread of such material?

We certainly need to look at the law in this area. I have not yet reached any conclusions on that matter, but I will certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that there might be some improvement in this area of concern if it were compulsory for judges to undergo sexual awareness training?

No.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had about the co-ordination of security information between police forces.

My Department keeps closely in touch with police forces and the Security Service about these arrangements. Lead responsibility for intelligence work against Irish Republican terrorism in Great Britain was transferred to the Security Service in October and I am not persuaded that further changes are necessary.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at a time when crime is becoming ever more sophisticated, it is ridiculous that there is not one proper centre to co-ordinate intelligence between the 43 police forces in England and Wales? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will overhaul and streamline the system so that drug trafficking, terrorism and other vicious crimes do not flourish?

I am as keen as my hon. Friend to make sure that such crimes do not flourish, but I am not satisfied that the present arrangements need to be changed in the way that he suggests. As I said a few moments ago, lead responsibility for intelligence work in terrorism has been transferred to the Security Service. The head of the anti-terrorist branch has a co-ordinating responsibility in relation to police work in this area. I am not satisfied that a case has been made for any change in those arrangements.,

May I urge the Home Secretary to reconsider what he has just said and to look again seriously at suggestions recently made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? It is clear that there is a need for more to be done. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is also clear that on both sides of the Irish sea the security services are not having the desired success? Consequently, there is merit in the suggestion that a senior Minister with authority throughout the United Kingdom should be appointed to tackle this issue.

I am not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman's case has been made out. It would, for example, be very odd if we were to remove responsibility for security operations in the Province from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am not satisfied that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would constitute an improvement in the arrangements.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied by the exchange of information between the Security Service and West Mercia police force in relation to the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the author of a recent book, who has raised allegedly new evidence on this case, is in fact a dog handler for the RAF police, with Security Service experience of some 20 years ago, who has been misrepresented by the publishers of the hook as a serving member of the Security Service?

I note my hon. Friend's comments. I have nothing further to add to what was said by my hon. Friend a few moments ago on this question.

What happened to the co-ordination between the security forces and the police force at the time that Asil Nadir decided to flee the country? Is it a fact that the British establishment and the Tory Government aided and abetted Asil Nadir to get out of the country, because he would have spilled the beans about all the Tory Ministers and Tory MPs if he had got into court?

I shall leave others to comment upon the paranoia of the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theories. I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangements for co-ordination that have been in existence for some time, including during the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the probation service is taking to work with the voluntary sector.

The probation service undertakes a wide range of partnerships with the voluntary sector to support effective programmes for dealing with offenders in the community. The Home Office currently provides over £20 million a year in grants to voluntary bodies to supplement the resources made available by probation committees. We greatly value the contribution that the voluntary sector is making in reducing crime in that and other ways.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many probation officers seem obsessed with community service as rehabilitation rather than punishment? Is it not small wonder that far too many persistent offenders see community service as a very soft option indeed and cock a snook at the law? Will he make sure in his discussions with probation officers that any future programmes instil a sense of discipline and responsibility?

Service in the community and community service orders should not be—and I will ensure that they are not—a soft option. The probation service can do a lot of good in the community by dealing with offenders who are sentenced. One such sentence is a community service order, and we will ensure that by no stretch of the imagination will it be regarded as a let-off.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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 he having further meetings later today.

In view of the leaked letter in the Daily Mail today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say where he thinks the borderline lies between a ministerial misjudgment and a resignation offence?

I have stated before in the case to which the hon. Lady refers, and I reiterate today, that I believe that my hon. Friend has acted with complete propriety in raising with the Attorney-General concerns that had been put to him about Mr. Nadir's case. I have no criticism of my hon. Friend on that account, or of his performance as a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office.

May I ask my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. We are wasting valuable time.

As my right hon. Friend has personal knowledge of Nigeria, may I ask him to say what reaction Her Majesty's Government have to the declaration by the military regime in Nigeria that they will overturn the results of the general election for the president, particularly in view of the fact that all the international observers and internal monitors felt that the election was free and fair?

I believe that this is an important matter. I wrote to President Babangida last week to support the transition to civilian rule. I deplore the military Government's subsequent decision to ignore the results of elections which British and other observers considered free and fair. We are, as a result, reviewing our relations with Nigeria, including new aid, and we have taken a number of immediate steps.

Is it not deplorable that the lack of any industrial policy or of a proper strategy for our defence industries has resulted in a polarised choice between Rosyth and Devonport for the Trident contract and a loss of thousands of jobs at both yards? Why do the Government not accept that, for industrial and defence reasons, this country needs the capability and expertise of both dockyards and their highly skilled management and work force?

I must say that the right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in that supplementary question precisely what the circumstances might be if the defence cuts that his party proposed should ever come into being. He proposed defence cuts that would probably have meant that we had no yards at all, no capacity to defend ourselves, very few soldiers, hardly a Navy and barely a plane.

Is it not a matter of record that the Government announced in the House in 1984, and repeated in 1985, that the refit contract would go to Rosyth and that such a commitment was repeated to the work force at the time of privatisation? What weight does the Prime Minister attach to specific promises given to either Rosyth or Devonport?

I seem to recall that at that time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party were keen to scrap Trident and said so repeatedly. How odd it is, people may think, that the Opposition want to scrap military hardware on one day and then fight for it desperately on another day. One is bound to ask where their hearts really lie.

Does the Prime Minister accept, as he was reminded by the noble Lord Younger, who had responsibility in the Conservative Government, that a specific commitment was given to the House in 1984? Does the Prime Minister accept that that is the case? If it is, what weight can anyone give to any undertaking that the Government give to anyone?

In view of the total disconjunction between the Opposition's policies and what they are now saying, that sort of comment from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is barefaced cheek. I suggest that he sets that aside.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the construction industry has had a difficult time during the recent recession. Will he join me in welcoming the good news yesterday that orders for new housing are now up by nearly 30 per cent. and that building is going on across the country, including in my constituency? Will he join me in saying that that is good news for the construction industry and all those who work in it?

I know that it has been a difficult time for our construction industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we announced special measures to help that industry in the autumn statement last year. I welcome the much better news that is becoming more apparent daily. It is good news for builders and for the economy as a whole. In construction, manufacturing, exports and on all sides, our prospects are improving and the economy is strengthening.

Last night the Secretary of State for Social Security called for a widespread cross-party public debate on the problems created by our present mountain of debt and the implications for long-term rises in social spending. That is an interesting suggestion. What specific proposals does the Prime Minister have to make it a reality?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it perfectly clear that we are carrying out a review of social security and I understand that, in secret, the principal Opposition party is doing the same. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will also contribute to that debate and we shall be happy to receive any representations from them. However, the day that I get representations from the Liberal Democrats about any difficult decision will be a remarkable day indeed.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the impudent talk about an industrial policy from the Labour party and welcome, for example, the success of QPL Holdings of Hong Kong and its new £42 million investment in south Wales? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the significance in commercial and industrial prosperity of the concentration of enterprise and expertise which attracts orders and creates jobs?

I note with interest that the Opposition scoff at fresh jobs for Wales. It has been a good week for Wales and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It shows how attractive Britain now is to inward investors. It shows also that the Labour party hates new jobs, wherever they may come from, if it feels that any of the credit will rub off on the Government's policies. We intend to keep Britain attractive for inward investment. There will be no minimum wage, no works councils, no social chapter and none of the nonsense that we hear from the Opposition that represents their industrial policy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the escalation in housing association rents, which is causing especial hardship to elderly people who are not entitled to full housing benefit? What has he to say to my constituent, Mrs. Riley, whose rent has increased from just under £26 a week to just over £50 a week? Does he think that that is totally unacceptable and what is he prepared to do about it?

In this country, we have perhaps the most generous system of housing benefit that we have ever seen and if the hon. Lady genuinely wanted a response to her question, she should have provided me with details of Mrs. Riley's income so that I could have responded.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when Mr. Baldwin, in his day, was under assault from the press barons of that time, his retort was that the newspapers were seeking to exercise power without responsibility, which is the traditional role of the harlot?

I will reply in a parody of the words of another great Englishman: Assault? I see no assault.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister share the sense of outrage at today's revelations that British taxpayers will have to foot a £1 million legal aid bill run up by that generous benefactor of the Tory party and bail bandit Mr. Asil Nadir, who does not seem to be short of a bob or two in northern Cyprus, at the same time as his Government are denying millions of people of modest means any access to legal aid at all? What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about that outrageous use of public money?

It is extremely unusual to hear the Labour party worrying about the taxpayer—refreshing perhaps, but just a touch unusual. As for legal aid, the usual cry from the Opposition Benches is for more and more legal aid.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent education and industry initiative that encourages industry to make an input into the future direction of our educational needs? Does he agree that those people who are for ever claiming to speak on behalf of the country's manufacturing base, and the necessary skills for its survival, do so with no credibility whatever while they are still supporting the boycott of tests this year and the dismantling of our city technology colleges?

Yes, my hon. Friend's logic is unanswerable. I agree with him entirely. Opposition Members may claim to speak for industry—we build for it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

In view of the Government's decision to cut the defence budget by 15 per cent. over the next five years, will the Prime Minister tell the House when he will announce a proper defence diversification strategy and prevent an appalling loss of skilled jobs?

I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not here for the earliest part of Question Time or she may not have asked such a question. She should consider the impact of her own party's defence policies before she criticises ours.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

Can the Prime Minister advise me on how I might reply to a 73-year-old constituent, who is in frail health and is partially deaf and partially blind? She wrote to me about the review of the social security budget and said that the Opposition have no programme whatsoever except to take taxation up and that were this Government ever to be unseated the results would be unthinkable.

My hon. Friend's constituent is very perceptive. I think that he should say to her that she can rest assured that the Government will stand by their commitment to the weak and vulnerable. Secondly, he could say to her that she should not believe the routine scares that come from Opposition Members day by day. Thirdly, he could tell her that the Labour party has no constructive ideas and, fourthly, he could tell her that we have no intention of doing other than remaining in government for the rest of this century and beyond.