To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his 27-point plan to reduce crime in the United Kingdom.

I have received a large number of representations and comments on my 27-point plan, including one from the chairman of the Police Federation, who said:

"My message to the Home Secretary is what you have proposed is first-class. It will help tremendously in the fight against crime."

Will the Home Secretary tell the House why, after almost 15 continuous years of Conservative Government, and within but a few months of his appointment, he felt compelled to introduce a package of such dubious complexity? Does that indicate the indolence and ineptitude of his Tory predecessors or his own desperation in the face of a national problem, which, throughout those 15 years, despite their fatuous pretence to the contrary, the Government have done nothing but exacerbate?

It may take me a little time to work out whether "dubious complexity" is an improvement on a "series of gimmicks". The truth of the matter is that, whatever phrase the Opposition attempt to fasten to the package that I announced, and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which implements it, they could not make up their mind what to do about it on Tuesday—they could not say yes and they could not say no. They simply abstained at the end of the day.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall reading that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that we should not be hesitant to praise the Government when they got things right? Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any sort of praise or representations from the hon. Member for Sedgefield as a result of those points?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received no praise, but lots of hesitancy. Hesitancy is the watch word of the Labour party.

Does the Home Secretary agree that there is no more serious cause of crime than the link between crime and drugs and drug abuse, particularly among young people? Is he aware that the police estimate that, in certain parts of the country, 70 per cent. of crime is linked to drugs, and that last week the Home Office report said that there was an urgent need for a national programme of drugs education and prevention through the country? In those circumstances, why did he take the Tory party to vote against Labour's amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which included precisely that, among other things?

I certainly agree that there is an important relationship between crime and drugs. We must take the influence of drugs on crime very seriously. That is why the Government have introduced into the national curriculum comprehensive education for children in our schools on the question of drugs.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if a suspect refuses to answer a simple question in a police station, the courts should be told and be allowed to take that into account?

My hon. Friend will be aware of our proposal to enable the courts to draw the appropriate inferences from the silence of those who are asked questions. He will also know that it has been warmly welcomed by the police, the public and the majority of the judges who gave evidence to the royal commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he plans to commission into the effects of violence on television and video on children and young people.

We intend to examine the results of research into the viewing behaviour of juvenile offenders which has been commissioned jointly by the British Board of Film Classification, the Broadcasting Standards Council, the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. Pending the outcome of that examination, the Government have no plans to commission further research on the subject.

As research figures show that 118,000 children under the age of 16 saw Child's Play 3, the film mentioned in the James Bulger and the Susan Capper trials, is the Minister in favour of amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a new classification of "unsuitable for home viewing" for particularly gratuitously violent films and videos, particularly as, unlike the Minister, I do not believe that current legislation is operating successfully?

We will consider all the ideas that come up, but, as I just said, we want first to see the results of the research which I believe is due in March. The hon. Lady is right to say that we should look at the classifications under the 1984 Act, and no doubt there will need to be a great deal of discussion on that, but we have the strongest law on video classification in the world. It may well be that it could be stronger, but it would be wise to obtain all the information that we can to see how it can be effectively strengthened, rather than giving an immediate reaction to a particularly horrid case about which we all know so much.

Is my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his recent honour, aware that this is a matter of concern not just for parts of the House but for the entire House and the entire adult population of Britain, and that the time has come not for studies but for action to stop child pornography and child violence coming on to the screens at times when children can watch it?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks. He referred to child pornography coming on to the screens, but the law is extremely tough against child pornography. It is being strengthened by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. However, what I think he is referring to, about which the great majority of people on both sides of the House and in the country at large are concerned, is the continual diet of violence on programmes of the broadcasting organisations and on videos. The difficulty is that, as I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree, any one particular item will, for most people, do no harm whatever; it is the cumulative effect and the repetitiveness that are dangerous. The law may well be strengthened, but the first line of defence is the editorial good sense of broadcasters.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the resources available to the Cleveland police authority to fight crime in the area.

Provision for policing in Cleveland in 1994–95 will increase by more than 4 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that crime in my constituency has risen by 132 per cent. since the Government came to power, burglary by 148 per cent. and auto crime by 281 per cent., resulting most recently this morning in a tragic death in the town? As my constituents have almost despaired of anything being achieved to stop that crime wave, will the Minister give a clear answer to the question this afternoon: will the Government's new Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill cut crime for my constituents or not? Yes or no?

First, I join the hon. Gentleman in the regret that he expressed about the death to which he referred. I know that he prides himself on his presentational skills, so it is a pity that he did a disservice to the House. In the year to 30 June 1993, crime fell in the area of the Cleveland constabulary by 2 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has not told the House that, for the current year, Cleveland's police standard spending assessment in-creased by 3·9 per cent., but the county council cut the police budget by 2 per cent. and, in nine of the past 15 years, has not even applied for an increase in its establishment. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question of course is yes.

Turning to another aspect of the Cleveland police, is my hon. Friend aware of how pleased the police in Stockton are that they are to be testing the new side-handled baton, which they called for and which the Home Secretary was only too ready to grant them? Will my hon. Friend further congratulate the police in Stockton on the greatest fall in burglary rates in Cleveland?

I happily join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in Stockton. He is right, too, about the value of the trials of the baton to which he referred. I am sure that both he and the House will be aware that the Cleveland force has done an excellent job. Not only has crime fallen by 2 per cent. throughout the area of the force, but the clear-up rate is better than the national average. Civilianisation is proceeding apace; by the end of 1992, 100 uniformed officers had been released by civilianisation, and it is planned to release another 40 for operational duties this year.

Whatever may be happening in Cleveland, are not large numbers of constabularies, including Warwickshire constabulary, facing budget cuts—in the case of Warwickshire, of 2 per cent.—as a result of Government policy? Does not the Minister understand that if the Government fail to deliver to constabularies the resources that they require to put officers on the beat, that is a false economy? If we do not provide police with the resources that they need, we will pay the price in higher insurance rates and in the rise in crime over which the Government have presided for the past 14 years.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, provision for police spending will increase by 4·4 per cent. What local authorities do with their budgets, having received their police SSAs, is a matter for them. If some Labour local authorities are willing to spend more on social services and less on their police budgets, that is a matter for them and a matter for which they will be answerable to their electorates.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Order. Mr. Roy Hughes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with representatives of police committees concerning reorganisation.

Ministers and officials have had many meetings with representatives of police authorities about our proposals for police reform.

Will the Minister appreciate that delay and speculation about reorganisation are undermining morale in the police service at a time when the police need to be ever more vigilant in the fight against crime? Will he recognise the greater efficiency of smaller forces such as those of Gwent and Dyfed-Powys? Given such efficiency and high levels of crime detection in these forces, is not the message to leave well alone?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall the answer that I gave on 13 May last year to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—that as a result of local government reform in Wales, some changes in the policing arrangements as between south Wales and Gwent are likely to be necessary. Home Office officials have already met the police authorities and chief constables and are making a detailed assessment of the options.

Does my hon. Friend consider it correct if police authorities undercut the morale of their own police forces by spreading rumours about the ill effects of the new police authority formation, as is happening in my hon. Friend's and my county of Sussex?

There is a lot of needless scaremongering about the reforms. As my hon. Friend knows, the new police authorities will be small, efficient bodies able to focus on key strategic tasks. A statutory obligation will be placed on them to consult locally, to draw up with the chief officer a local plan or strategy, and then to be answerable for that by reporting the results of policing every year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relinquish his powers to impose tariff sentences on those sentenced by the courts.

I set tariffs only in relation to those persons who have received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. I have no plans at present to change that arrangement, but I am still considering the recent report of the Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, chaired by Lord Lane.

Does not the Home Secretary agree that the case of Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz illustrates the urgent need for decisions on the duration of mandatory life sentences to be left to the trial judge, who is in possession of all the facts and the legal arguments? Is that not better than the Home Secretary's exercising power in an arbitrary and unaccountable way—which, in this case, has extended those two men's sentences far beyond those delivered by the trial judge?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Of course full weight is given to the opinions of both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, but the final decision in such cases is a matter for the Home Secretary.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise the huge support in north Hertfordshire and the country as a whole for tougher sentencing powers to deal with persistent young offenders? If they are locked up, they cannot commit offences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents that these excellent proposals will not be watered down by the Opposition, in Committee or elsewhere?

Subject, of course, to the will of the House, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We certainly have no intention of watering down the powers, because we appreciate full well that the public need to be protected from the activities of the relatively small number of young offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences. That is why we are introducing these provisions, which we intend to implement as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding jury-nobbling; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received no recent representations. We are determined that criminals should not be allowed to escape their just deserts because of interference with jurors. As soon, therefore, as the necessary details can be worked out, we intend to ask the House to approve provisions which, if approved, will allow retrials to be held after proven instances of jury nobbling.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Let me add my congratulations on his recent elevation.

Yes, of course that is true.

Does the Minister agree that more support schemes for witnesses are needed in the Crown courts to deal with jury nobbling and the intimidation of witnesses? Why are the Government cutting such schemes, rather than expanding them?

The hon. Lady is entirely wrong; we are expanding them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on preparing an order on referral of lenient sentences.

I can announce today that an order will be laid shortly which will extend the Attorney-General's powers with effect from 1 March. The order will bring within those powers offences of indecent assault, cruelty to children and making threats to kill.

If the policy of referring lenient sentences is central to the fight against crime, how seriously should we take the representations of those who like to claim the moral high ground on the law-and-order issue, and who constantly pontificate about the need for the Government to take tougher action on crime, but who bitterly opposed and voted against the referral of lenient sentences? They include the Opposition home affairs spokesman.

The seriousness with which we can take the Opposition's attitude can best be tested by recalling what was said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—then shadow Home Secretary—when the powers were first introduced. He said

"It is quite wrong that a man or woman should be required to serve the longer of two sentences imposed on them. It is wrong that the obviously political intrusion which this system provides should be introduced into our legal system. It is wrong that the Attorney-General should be subject to the campaigns inside and outside this House."—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 693.]

In line with his tough view on sentencing policy, what does the Home Secretary think would be an appropriate sentence for the squandering, waste and misappropriation of £21 million of taxpayers' money?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a matter for the district auditor. [Interruption.] It is still under consideration by the district auditor and it is a remarkable illustration of the Opposition's attitude to justice that they are anxious to leap in on the basis of provisional representations before the law has completed its course.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has conducted into the effectiveness of custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.

The research and statistics department of the Home Office regularly publishes material relevant to the consideration of the effectiveness of sentencing, including custodial sentencing.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the value of custody lies not only in giving the best possible protection to the public from serious and persistent offenders but in improving the effectiveness and credibility of non-custodial sentences by giving a sanction to the courts against those who refuse to comply with non-custodial sentences and who will not respond to them but commit further offences? Are not those who talk about whether prison works ignoring that fact and are they not inviting house burglars, car thieves and the like to cock a snook at the courts?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is precisely because of the point that he has raised that the figures that we derive from our research consistently underestimate the deterrent effect of imprisonment.

Does the Home Secretary know, however, of the calculation made by the head of research at the Home Office to the effect that it would require a 25 per cent. increase in the prison population to achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in crime? Surely that would cost in the region of £1 billion. Given the fact that only one in 50 crimes leads to a conviction, would it not be much better for the Government to have a comprehensive crime prevention policy, which would be not only cheaper but much more effective in reducing the rate of crime?

The point that the hon. Lady makes is thoroughly absurd. Of course, most offences and most offenders should not be subject to sentence of imprisonment so to compare rates of imprisonment with all offences committed, as she has done, is of no relevance to the argument. Much more relevant is the research which shows that between three and 13 offences could be prevented for each convicted domestic burglar who is imprisoned for a year rather than sentenced to community service. That is the relevant statistic—why do the Opposition run away from it?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged over 70 years have been attacked in their own homes in 1993.

I regret that the information requested on people aged over 70 is not available from statistics of recorded crime. However, data from recent British crime surveys suggest that those aged 60 and over are less likely to suffer incidences of violent crime in and around the home than those in younger age groups.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the circumstantial link between drug addiction and the growing number of cases of elderly women in their own homes who are being badly battered, raped or, in one case, locked in a cupboard, thrown face down and left to die? Does he not think it is time that the House had a full day's debate on drug addiction and the growing number of innocent people made victims because we are trying to prevent silly people taking drugs and destroying themselves?

Elderly people are vulnerable and they fear crime more than younger people. Many of them are afraid to go out at night for fear of burglary or mugging. There have been despicable and cowardly attacks on old people, which we all condemn and deplore, but statistics clearly show that people under 24 are about 20 times more likely to be victims of crime than those aged over 60. It might seem—although we cannot go only by anecdote—that junkies and others are targeting their own age group rather than the elderly. I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing more research, but whether a debate is held is not a matter for me.

As the Minister has had a couple of days to think about the answer, will he tell elderly people, hon. Members and people watching on television whether the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will cut crime? It is a very simple question. Will the Minister answer today since he could not do so the other day?

I will tell the Labour party what the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, on which Labour abstained, will do. It will make our criminal justice system the most effective possible, and of course we shall see results. We want cautioning to fall and, following the issuing of new guidelines by my right hon. and learned Friend, it is starting to do so. We want to see fewer police officers behind desks and more on the streets, and with cuts in their paperwork and less middle management that is exactly what we shall see. We want to see persistent juvenile offenders off the streets and in custody and, with our new secure training centres, that is what we shall see, yet that is what the Labour party abstained on. Above all, we want a criminal justice system in which everyone—the public, the police and the courts—can have confidence, and that is the yardstick by which I shall judge the Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many elderly people fall prey to young violent criminals, including those under the age of 15 who are now subject to the Children Act 1989? Will he confirm that the secure training orders envisaged in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will put such young thugs behind secure bars and locks for the first time, which will give some reassurance to the elderly, who fall prey to them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which was given a Second Reading on Tuesday and about which the Labour party could not make up its mind, gives courts for the first time the power to send directly to secure accommodation youngsters aged under 15 who have a history of persistent offending. That will give some peace of mind not only to elderly people but to many in villages, towns and housing estates throughout the length and breadth of this country and in Labour constituencies. I am not sure how Labour Members will be able to face their constituency executives tomorrow night and tell them that on this major measure, which affects their constituents, they did not know what to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers he estimates will be rostered for duty on Sundays as a result of the partial deregulation of Sunday trading.

The number of police officers rostered for duty is an operational matter for chief officers.

Does the Minister accept that it will be necessary to roster additional police officers, environmental health officers, street cleaners and trading standards officers to police Sunday trading? Who will pay for them?

The Association of Chief Police Officers suggests that the resource implications for policing are minimal and manageable. I think that I prefer the police's judgment of the matter to the hon. Gentleman's.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on neighbourhood watch schemes being involved in street patrolling.

A number of neighbourhood watch schemes already patrol as part of their voluntary crime prevention activities. To encourage such local initiatives, I have asked for a code of practice to be drawn up in consultation with the police.

Does not the Home Secretary realise how ridiculous and dangerous it is to advise neighbourhood watch schemes to get involved in street patrols? Has not he been told that the police consider it to be very dangerous? Why does not he admit that what he wants is for residents increasingly to use private guards, which is another form of privatisation of the police service?

No. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If anyone really wanted to see the Labour party's attitude towards such matters he should have observed the manifest derision of Opposition Members when I recounted to the House on Tuesday the work being done by Town Watch in Sandwich, patrolling the streets to reduce crime in the area and to escort elderly citizens who want to be taken out at night to visit their friends and neighbours. I went out with Sandwich Town Watch on Sunday night, and I was greatly impressed by what I saw. Such work should receive a tribute from the Labour party, not the derision that we saw on Tuesday. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must settle down. There are far too many noisy conversations going on. [Interruption.] Order. The House must settle down now.

Is not it true that people who become involved in the patrolling schemes alongside neighbour-hood watch understand clearly that the idea of people patrolling and keeping watch is a major deterrent to those involved in much of the petty crime that besets our housing estates? Is that not the real reason why my constituents in Cottenham, and people in many other places, have become involved in such schemes? They are a means of helping to keep down crime, especially in rural areas. Do they not represent a sensible way forward, alongside the special constable scheme, which is also being widely welcomed in my constituency?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend but such schemes are of use not only in rural areas. I have told the House of my experiences in Sandwich on Sunday night; last Thursday night I patrolled in a similar way with a group of concerned citizens in Washington DC. They said to me, "People behave differently if they know that they are being watched." [Laughter.] That is the principle behind neighbourhood watch.—[interruption.]

Order.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order now.

It is astonishing how reluctant the Labour party is to take seriously the safety of people on our streets and in their houses, and the extent to which the active citizen can make a contribution towards achieving those objectives.

I assure the Home Secretary that he is being watched. Does he not accept that patrolling our streets is part of the job of a constable, which demands training and expertise?

We have fully discharged our manifesto promise to increase police numbers. If I have failed to support the police, why did the chairman of the Police Federation say about my speech in Blackpool,

"My message to the Home Secretary is that what you have proposed is first-class. It will help tremendously in the fight against crime"?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers will be returned to operational duties by his plans to cut paperwork and to reduce the number of police middle managers.

That is a matter for chief officers to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of their own forces, but my right hon. and learned Friend has made it possible over time for some 5,300 police officers to be redeployed to front-line operational police duties.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell the House what support he has had for the proposals and is he aware of the many forward-looking police forces that are developing computer software programmes, which are now cutting administrative burdens and putting more police officers back on the beat?

My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has received widespread and enthusiastic support not only for those two reform proposals, but for all his police reform proposals, because they will provide a modernised and more effective organisational structure, allow chief officers the freedom to deploy financial resources as they see fit —whether on equipment, on computer technology or on personnel—and allow for free-standing budgets that cannot be poached by local authorities. More officers with less paperwork will be getting out from behind their desks to the beat on locally focused operational duties. They will help to prevent crime, tackle crime where it occurs and protect the public.

If the reduction in paperwork is bringing such enormous benefits, why is my constituency of Hampstead and Highgate threatened with the removal of 22 police officers? Surely one of the quickest ways to bring peace of mind to the elderly who are indeed under threat in my constituency is by not only retaining the present number of police officers but increasing it.

As the hon. Lady will know, the deployment of police in the Metropolitan area is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Judging by the hon. Lady's concern, I am sure that she will support the Bill concerning the police in its passage through the House.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to get to grips with law and order, we cannot always leave it to the police, but must rely on measures such as those introduced by the Home Secretary yesterday and we must rely on the judiciary to give hobnail-boot sentences and not carpet-slipper sentences?

My hon. Friend provides a powerful endorsement of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. He is also absolutely right to point out that it is partnership which matters in the fight against crime and crime prevention between community groups, members of the public and local authorities working with the police.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lift the freeze on police recruitment in the next financial year.

There is no recruitment freeze. Forces remain free to recruit up to their authorised establishment.

I hear what the Minister says, but does he agree that although the police are free to recruit, they need to be supported by resources? In his reforms of the police, will the Home Secretary consider that they need further resources, will he ensure that those resources are available and, in making those resources available, will he take into consideration the partnership that needs to be forged between the police, the local community and local authorities?

That is precisely why the police spending provision will increase next year by 4·4 per cent., precisely why 279 extra police posts have been approved in South Yorkshire since 1979—an extra 10 per cent.—and why, since 1979, across the country we have some 16,600 more uniformed police officers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy of giving chief officers control over the budgets for police officers and civilian staff will enable those chief officers to deploy resources more efficiently in the circumstances of the regions for which they are responsible?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, we have an out-dated system by which police chief officers have to express every bid for extra money in terms of additional uniformed posts. Now, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, chief officers will have the flexibility to decide how they spend their budget.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of Operation Cheetah on Merseyside to date; and whether the inquiry is continuing.

Merseyside police expect the total cost of Operation Cheetah to be approximately £2·2 million. The inquiry is now at an end.

Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Merseyside police committee has expressed concern at the number of hours that have been spent on this investigation? Is the Minister satisfied with the liaison between the Merseyside police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

In that case, no doubt the chairman of the police authority will make his feelings known, as I am sure he has, to the chief officer. It is for the chief officer to allocate resources and to deploy officers on operational matters. It must be the responsibility of the police to investigate such allegations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that wherever there is suspected wrongdoing on Merseyside it is entirely right for the police to investigate it?

My hon. Friend is right and that is precisely what the police did.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of his Department.

Steps to improve the efficiency of the Home Office and its services include market testing, contracting out, computerisation, better purchasing and greater productivity.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole way in which his Department is working now demonstrates the effectiveness of what he is doing and that the new measures which he has announced are exactly what people are looking for?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that he is right. I am gratified by the widespread support that I have received from the public for the measures that I am putting in place. It is a great shame that the Labour party could not support them on Tuesday.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein calling for the clarification of the Downing street declaration is just a sickening attempt by the IRA's apologists to shuffle the responsibility for their evil campaign of terror and fear? Is it not time that they faced up to their responsibilities and grasped the challenge of adopting the democratic path?

I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many millions of people in this country and throughout the island of Ireland. I welcome in particular the recent statement by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), making clear that he sees no excuse whatever for continuing violence and appealing for people to devote themselves exclusively to the democratic process. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on a number of occasions, the joint declaration is not an invitation for renegotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have gone to great lengths in this House and beyond it to ensure that the joint declaration is fully understood and we shall, of course, continue to do so. We still await a positive response from the IRA.

Will the Prime Minister unequivoc-ally condemn the gerrymandering and wilful misconduct which has cost £21 million of taxpayers' money in what his party has described as a flagship council?

Let me say unequivocally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the reported allegations about the council turn out to be true, of course I condemn such activities just as I would condemn malpractice in any council, wherever it occurred. It would be wrong to comment on this case while the auditor is still considering it. The auditor operates independently of Government, has full powers to pursue his inquiries and I have no doubt that he will continue to use them to the full. We should wait and see precisely what the outcome may be. Otherwise, we are in danger of assuming that people have committed malpractice until they are proved innocent. I would think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a barrister, would recognise that that is no way to pass judgment.

Does the Prime Minister recollect the frequent endorsements that he and his colleagues have offered to Westminster city council, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State for Employment, that Westminster council was one of the Tory's stunning successes and a source of cheer for every Conservative? Taking everything into account, does the Prime Minister think that those endorsements were wholly wise?

I have just made it perfectly clear to the whole House that the district auditor's report contains a number of serious allegations. At this stage, they are allegations. There is now a perfectly proper legal process by which the allegations will be examined in depth and the truth arrived at. The district auditor has been at pains to stress that his findings are provisional. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait until those findings are confirmed before he is so swift to judge.

Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that the matter has now been investigated for four years, and what is revealed is a devastating example of financial corruption and an abuse of power by senior members of the Conservative party? Cannot he at least condemn that?

I have already made it clear that if the allegations are confirmed, I will condemn unreservedly. But, as has been made entirely clear, this is the start of the legal process. Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, most people will prefer to wait until that is completed and not find people guilty until and unless they are proven to be guilty. That is a cardinal principle of British law which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's sharp fall in unemployment? Does he recall that one year ago the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted that unemploy-ment would rise month after month? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to make another such prediction?

Most people would probably settle not for another prediction but for an admission from the hon. Gentleman that he got it wrong again and again and again. I very much welcome yesterday's fall in unemployment, which means that the number of unemployed people has fallen by nearly a quarter of a million over the past year. Of course, it is still too high, but the fall of nearly 47,000 on top of the falls in recent months suggests that we are now seeing a continuing downward trend in the level of unemployment. We are the only western European nation to have low inflation, an economy that is growing and unemployment that is falling significantly.

Does—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. There is impossibly bad behaviour today.

Does Lord Justice Scott still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?

It was the Government who set up the inquiry and gave Lord Justice Scott the freedom to pursue it as he thinks fit. I have no adverse comments to make on the way that he is doing it.

Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £20 million contract won by Plymouth-based British Aerospace (Systems and Equipment) Ltd. in December, further boosted by a share in the £50 million contract announced by the Ministry of Defence yesterday? Is that not a fine illustration of defence contracts boosting and sustaining British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Liberal policy on defence were followed, those defence jobs would simply not exist and many people in the west country would be out of work?

I am, of course, delighted at the contracts to which my hon. Friend refers. It is certainly the case that if the reductions in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition were carried into force, the implications not only for our capacity to defend ourselves but for British industry, not least in the west country, would be very profound. It would be a reassuring change if the Leader of the Liberal party were to say the same thing in the west country as he says elsewhere.

To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to a London national health service hospital.

I shall be making a series of visits around the country, during which I intend to include NHS hospitals, as I have in the past.

In his visits around the country, will the Prime Minister undertake to explain to Londoners why more than 150,000 people are on hospital waiting lists? Beds are being closed and wards are being taken out of operation, and one night in Bart's hospital more than 30 people had to sleep on floors or on trolleys because there was not sufficient space for them. Are not the Prime Minister's policies of the internal market leading to more and more closures and losses of bed space as the crisis and the chaos get worse? Is not it time for him to intervene to scrap the internal market and give Londoners the health service which they need, deserve and demand? Is not that a basic right?

We are certainly seeking to give Londoners the health service which they deserve. In addition, we are seeking to improve dramatically primary health care in the capital and that has been evident for some time.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work that is being done in Eastleigh to develop a safer door lock for trains? Such a lock could have averted some of the 300 deaths which have occurred during the past 20 years when passengers have fallen out of trains. Will the Government encourage British Rail to invest in the new technology which would not only save lives on the railways but would also save jobs in my constituency?

My hon. Friend may know that British Rail is actively considering the technical feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of the system to which he refers. I know how important the decision is for my hon. Friend, and I know how hard he has worked on behalf of his constituents. British Rail is examining the matter at the moment.

On November 10 1992, the Prime Minister, together with the Attorney-General, announced the appointment of Lord Justice Scott to conduct his inquiry. Will the Prime Minister now express his full confidence that Lord Justice Scott is conducting the inquiry fairly, particularly since he is due shortly to appear before Lord Justice Scott? Is the Prime Minister confident that he will be treated fairly by Lord Justice Scott? Will the Prime Minister repudiate the scurrilous attack on Lord Justice Scott by Lord Howe?

I know that it has been a quite noisy House this afternoon, but I seem to recall answering that question a few moments ago. I will reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government appointed Lord Justice Scott to conduct an independent inquiry. It is therefore for him to draw up his own procedures and it is not a matter for the Government to comment on those procedures. I have no adverse comments to make upon those procedures, as I indicated a few moments ago.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued incarceration of Ron Arad is quite unacceptable? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their efforts to secure his freedom?

I can certainly give that assurance, and we will continue to support efforts to free Mr. Arad. We have raised the case on innumerable occasions with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who may be able to help. On his visit to Israel earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary met members of Mr. Arad's family and assured them that we will continue to do what we can to help. My right hon. Friend gave them our warm sympathy for the pain and suffering which they must feel at present.

Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that whether or not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic proceeds to interpret, elaborate, explain or, indeed, encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to respond to the Downing street declaration, he will stand by it and that he expects members of Sinn Fein-IRA to cease their campaign completely and indicate that they will lay down their arms so that they can enter the democratic process?

I certainly wish to see them unreservedly and permanently end violence and then enter into exploratory talks that can lead to them taking part in the democratic process. I reiterate again: we are not in the business of clarifying the declaration. The declaration is clear. What is intended by Mr. Adams in his present activities is to seek bit by bit to draw the Government into negotiation upon the joint declaration. That is not on offer to Mr. Adams now. It will not be on offer to Mr. Adams in the future. If he wishes to enter into discussions, he knows how he may do it. He can decide to give up violence. After three months he can enter into exploratory talks. Then he will be able to enter into the democratic talks process itself. That is the route ahead. The only question that needs to be asked is not of the British Government or the Irish Government but of Mr. Adams. Will he stop the violence and enter the democratic process or will he not? Everything else is fudge.