To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the reduction in services that fire authorities will have to make as a result of expenditure shortfalls. [28397]

Representations have been received from a number of hon. Members and others. My approval is required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 when any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade is proposed.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, according to figures provided by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, our fire services face a funding shortfall of £90 million? The situation is so serious not only in my area of Merseyside but in other parts of the country that at least one authority, North Yorkshire, is considering charging motorists for attending car crashes—the so-called "cash as you crash" plan. When will the Home Secretary finally face up to the serious in-built underfunding of a vital area of our emergency services?

It is all very well for Labour Back Benchers to complain about underfunding, but the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury keep telling everyone that the Labour party will not spend any more money. Only one fire authority—South Yorkshire—sought a redetermination of its capping limit, and the application was successful.

Notwithstanding what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is he aware of the grave concern in places such as Filey and Scarborough about the reductions in fire cover that have had to be made because the standard spending assessments for big shire counties such as North Yorkshire are inadequate? May we now have a thorough review of the Home Office fire standard and the standard spending assessments that should go with it so that the big rural areas get the fire cover that they need?

My hon. Friend will know that the standard spending assessment formula is being reviewed. Of course we shall take the concerns of North Yorkshire and others into account in that context. However, I see no reason why the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover cannot be maintained throughout the country.

What is the logic of a system under which the Home Secretary tells fire authorities what standard of cover they must maintain but the Department of the Environment then tells them that because of their SSAs or capping they cannot spend the amount necessary to achieve that level of cover? That happened in Northumberland and Shropshire, and it is happening in North Yorkshire. Are not the public, who are thus at greater risk, the sufferers of all that?

The right hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the facts. It is the duty of every authority to provide fire cover in accordance with national minimum standards. I have made that clear time and again. Authorities that are not single-service authorities must assess the priorities for their budgets so that cover is provided. If single-service authorities were capped they had the opportunity to make an application for redetermination of the cap. As I have said, only one fire authority made such an application, and that was successful.

May I make a special plea for the fire authority in my constituency, which has unusual topographical and geographical features? Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider my plea?

The special features of my hon. Friend's constituency—they are indeed special, and he has drawn them to the attention of every local government Minister for the past 10 years—will be carefully taken into account in the review of the SSA.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a rolling electoral registration system; and if he will make a statement. [28398]

The report of our post-election review concluded that more work was needed before a decision could be taken on a rolling register. Ministers are considering the report.

Is not the current electoral registration system pathetic? An Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report showed that between 3 million and 4 million people are missing from electoral registers. People register in October, but the register—which lasts for a full year—does not come out until February and is 16 months out of date by the time it is completed. Does the Minister realise that the annual death rate among over-18s is 630,000, which means that about 800,000 names—some 2 per cent. of the electorate—should not be on the registers? It is disturbing for people to find that the names of their loved ones are still on electoral registers and that they are receiving electoral communications. Would not a rolling register be the answer to the problem?

I should like to take the opportunity to correct some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. There is not enough information to give a wholly reliable and accurate figure, as the hon. Gentleman found out from correspondence with my office, but according to the best figures available there were 42.624 million names on electoral registers in 1994, compared with an estimated resident population of 44.780 million—a difference of 2.156 million. The working party has looked at a rolling register and while it certainly concluded that it might result in a more up-to-date register, it decided that it would not improve registration. We are considering a detailed analysis of a complex matter, but experience in Australia, which has a rolling register, suggests that house-to-house checks are still necessary. That experience hardly suggests that a rolling register is as accurate as the hon. Gentleman seems to think.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real scandal of electoral registration was the campaign organised by certain hon. Members to discourage people from registering and to encourage them to become tax dodgers?

My hon. Friend is quite right. We spend a great deal of money on advertising the desirability of registering, and I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support for that campaign.

Does not the issue require more urgent attention? In addition to the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), is there not an increasing problem in certain areas of England with false registration and other forms of electoral fraud? Does not that stem from the fact that registration officers and party workers who are dealing with extended families with similar names have difficulty in identifying who is who? Must not that issue be tackled? Could it not be tackled and cured by the adoption of identity cards—an additional reason for such cards that does not appear in the Home Office consultation paper?

We are certainly looking at all the ways of improving registration, although not at the particular example mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. According to the OPCS figures to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred, the number of people registering to vote in England and Wales rose in 1995 by 88,000 to a total of 38.765 million. I am pleased to say that—no doubt as a result of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy—electoral registration in Derbyshire, North-East rose by 0.5 per cent., more than the national average.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to prevent drugs from entering prisons and to ensure prisoners are properly searched. [28399]

A number of measures are in place to ensure that we take effective action to prevent drugs from entering prisons. These include the greater use of sniffer dogs, closed circuit television in visits areas, the introduction of closed visits for people who are found to be involved in drug taking or handling in prison and the introduction of mandatory testing.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the exceptional case in one of the prisons on the Isle of Wight where a prisoner had drugs secreted up his backside. As the British Medical Association does not allow doctors to perform internal searches of prisoners, he was not able to be arrested and he got the drugs into the prison. Is he further aware that prisoners shuffle their chairs over to the other side of the table during open visits to partake in intimate embraces with their visitors, during which drugs are passed? Why cannot the chairs be nailed to the floor? Why should not closed visits be the norm and open visits be earned as a privilege?

The judge must answer for himself on those matters. My hon. Friend wrote to me in, I think, November about the case that he mentioned in his question. I have been reviewing the policy on internal searches when drugs are believed to be concealed. We shall shortly consult on how we might strengthen the law in that regard.

Is the Minister aware that Judge Tumim has reported that, for example, about 80 per cent. of inmates in Styal prison were routinely involved in the taking of illegal drugs? What have been the results so far from the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons? He has already mentioned some ideas, but what further measures will he consider to try to stem this tide of illegal drugs in our prisons?

Of course I am aware of the comments about Styal prison. Mandatory testing, which is an important part of the fight against drugs, has been successfully introduced on the basis of a rolling programme. Evidence shows that it is not only identifying drug misuse but that it is welcomed by a number of prisoners who see it as a step forward. Mandatory testing will enable us to identify drug misuse and tackle the sources of drugs. It will also enable us to ensure that proper systems of treatment are in place. Prisoners will be given treatment and support to get them off drugs so that when they leave prison they do not continue to take them, reoffend and find themselves returning to prison.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his latest proposals to stop personal contact between prisoners and visitors in top security prisons and in prisons where drug offences have been suspected? It has been a source of puzzlement to many of us over the past few years why there is not a glass partition between visitors and prisoners sentenced for more serious cases. For some reason there has been reluctance to have such a partition. Will he take on board the fact that most people would like such a restriction to be imposed on prisoners?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, we have introduced closed visits for exceptional risk category A prisoners as a matter of course. We have said that we shall introduce closed visits where prisoners have been found to be abusing visits and are involved in drug taking or the handling of drugs. I do not think that it would be right to introduce closed visits for all prisoners. Where prisoners are found to be involved in illegal practices, closed visits are justified, but the purpose of prison is to punish the prisoner, not families, and it is appropriate that families should be able to visit prisoners in an open situation—provided the rules are observed.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the offending rate and the detection rate of crime by 16-year-old boys and girls currently and 10 years ago. [28401]

For boys aged 16, the offender rate has fallen from 10,900 per 100,000 in 1984 to 9,300 in 1993. For girls aged 16, it has risen from 1,600 per 100,000 to 2,200 in 1993.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on joining the Privy Council and you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate. Monitoring the offending rate for different age groups is as important in respect of general crime as it was in the successful attack on changing the culture of drink driving. If we seriously want to reduce the number of victims, we have to stop the flow of 1,000 or 2,000 people a week who, for the first time, commit serious crimes.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He has tremendous knowledge of and experience in dealing with young people through the Church of England Children's Society, where he was a leading expert. He is absolutely correct about the careful monitoring of young offenders and potential young offenders. I want to monitor not only 16-year-olds but those considerably younger who begin to go astray for the first time. We intend to see what measures we can take to keep them on the strait and narrow. If they wander off it, we shall need an appropriate range of penalties rising progressively up the scale.

The Minister will be aware that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the persistent young offender. What new initiatives will he take to try to resolve that problem?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by a tiny number of young people. We shall take the measures that his party has consistently voted against in the past two years. Despite the Labour party voting against the powers to deal with that hard group of young offenders, the powers are on the statute book and we shall introduce them as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be less crime among 16-year-olds if school discipline were more effective? School discipline would be more effective if moderate corporal punishment were restored to the heads and staff of schools as a proper sanction against under-16s who misbehave? Would that not stop many of them appearing before the courts?

My hon. Friend knows that children spend considerably more time under the influence of others rather than school teachers. Their time in the evenings and at weekends in the family home is even more important than the time they spend in school. Of course, teachers have responsibility but I would not put the sole responsibility for bringing up properly educated, well-disciplined children on teachers alone. Others in society have a responsibility: first and foremost, parents.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of staff morale within the prison service. [28402]

A survey carried out in 1994 showed that two thirds of prison staff were either satisfied or very satisfied with their job.

Is the Minister aware that, as the summer is becoming hot, the same survey showed that nine out of 10 prison staff said that they felt that Prison Service management did not have enough regard for those who have face-to-face dealings with prisoners, which suggests that morale is rather low? Can he give an assurance that if there is any incident later this summer, Ministers will accept their responsibility instead of, as in the past, passing the buck to anyone else down the line?

I am slightly astonished that the hon. Gentleman should seek to link any incident with how Ministers should or should not take responsibility. Is he seriously trying to send out a message that if people riot in prisons, it will somehow affect our attitudes? If he is, that would he very irresponsible. Whatever happens in the Prison Service, we will follow the established procedure, which is to establish the facts and hold those responsible to account. If he is concerned about morale in the Prison Service, would not it be better if he and his colleagues gave the service a little credit for the good work that it does every day of the week in looking after 51,000 of the most difficult people in the country?

Is my right hon. Friend aware of some prison officers' concern about the notice that they have to give prisoners before searching their cells for drugs? Why is that notice needed?

There is no requirement for notice to be given, and I share my hon. Friend's consternation when it is. However, it is a matter for governors, who are responsible for the conduct of prisons, and some governors have sometimes given notice. I share with my hon. Friend and, I believe, most hon. Members, a determination to ensure that effective drug searches are carried out in our prisons. We are reviewing the amount of property that prisoners are allowed in their cells so that more effective searches can be carried out—and quickly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the current situation in respect of compensation for victims of violent crime. [28403]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding reductions in compensation to victims of the most violent crimes. [28406]

We are currently putting through Parliament a Bill that proposes an enhanced tariff scheme. It envisages compensation payable to victims rising from £175 million to £260 million over the next five years. The scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.

The Minister's answer bears no relation to reality. The truth is that the Government are cutting compensation to the victims of crime. Does he not understand that he is sending a message to victims of crime that they have a Government who do not care about them, when he should be sending the message that they have a Government who are intent on cracking down on crime and protecting them from violent crime?

The reality is that, once again, a member of the Labour party is saying that she wants to spend more money, whereas the shadow Chancellor is saying that Labour will not do so. Labour has not spelt out clearly how much it will spend on the victims of crime whereas we have spelt out in the Bill how much we shall spend.

Was not the Leader of the House right when he wrote to warn the Prime Minister in March that the Government's intention to reduce compensation to the victims of serious crime would put the Government on the wrong side of the argument? Is not it typical of the Government that, although crime has risen substantially in the past 16 years—many parts of the country are crime ridden—they are punishing financially the victims of serious crime? It is no wonder that they are held in such contempt across the country.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman had written his little supplementary question before he heard the figures, but we have come to expect that from him. I read out how much we project will be spent on the victims of crime over the next few years, and it is an unprecedented amount. The Labour party is keen to quote everything European, so why does it not mention the fact that what we alone will spend on the victims of crime will be more than every other country in Europe put together—and more even than the mighty United States of America?

Does not Britain have a support system for victims of violent crime—with whom, of course, we all have the greatest sympathy—which includes social services, counselling and medical services to ensure that a victim of crime, even without any form of compensation, has the best care under the welfare state? Is not it important that we avoid the route taken in the United States where the victim of almost anything—from an exploding Coca-Cola can to a real crime—expects to be rewarded financially for the awful things that he has been through?

My hon. Friend is right to mention the United States. The amount of compensation paid to victims of crime in this country is higher than the total paid in the United States, which has a much higher population and a much worse violent crime rate. We have a proud story of success in looking after victims of crime.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that another aspect of compensation to victims of crime is the punishment that is given to those who have committed the crime? Has not the Labour party consistently opposed the Government's legislation to increase punishment? Is not the Labour party soft on crime and even softer on punishment?

I know that the Labour party wants to pretend that it is tough on crime, but we know its track record. We know that it voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, giving the Attorney-General a power to appeal against over-lenient sentences, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In the light of that record of voting against every single measure that makes a difference in bearing down on crime, new Labour, during the passage of the most recent Criminal Justice Act, was able to abstain on Second Reading and Third Reading.

The public know full well that it is the Conservative Government who have presided over the doubling of crime, and it is the Conservative Government who have voted down every constructive approach by the Opposition to tackle guns, to tackle crime and to nip things in the bud with young offenders. The public know that it is the Government who want to cut the cash for victims, whereas the Opposition have told Ministers, "If you do not cut the cash available for the victims of crime, we will not cut the cash available for the victims of crime." Will the Minister confess that, over the next five years, he will cut the cash for victims of crime by £700 million?

The whole House enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's outburst—not even his hon. Friends could keep a straight face as he was speaking. The Labour party has voted against every criminal justice measure that we have taken, which has increased the penalties for crime. That is the measure of the hon. Gentleman, who now protests that he cares about crime. We do not need any form of weasel words—"If you don't cut the cash, neither will we". We have put in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill the extra money that we are giving victims. Why will not the Labour party spell out its bottom line? It is because its shadow Chancellor has said, "No costed promises in the manifesto; do not tell the public what it will cost."

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the provision and use of telephones by convicted prisoners serving their sentence. [28404]

Official telephones are available for urgent or compassionate reasons only and, as a privilege, prisoners have access to a cardphone.

May I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate and welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware of the great unhappiness that is caused to the families of victims of crime and, indeed, of murderers such as Winston Silcott and others in Parkhurst, who are allowed to give interviews on the media? Does he agree that the decent people of the country are amazed and appalled to discover that prisoners can telephone the newspapers and the other media? Does he further agree that the use of a telephone is a privilege, which should be earned, and should be taken away when it is abused?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The rules have been changed recently to prevent prisoners from telephoning the media in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The most recent example was prisoner Rose who escaped from Parkhurst prison and then rang up "The World at One" and gave an account of how he had escaped. I was surprised by that incident because the BBC production guidelines make it clear that criminals should not be given an opportunity to glamorise their crimes or to give details of crimes that could be copied. It is clearly a matter for the governors of the BBC and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is time that they put their house in order.

It makes a change to listen to prisoners rather than Conservative Members on "The World at One". Can the Minister say how many prisoners have access to mobile telephones? Is it not a fact that a number of prisoners are using mobile phones to order drugs?

No prisoner should have access to a mobile telephone, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the measures that have been taken to reduce the amount of property that prisoners can possess and to improve searching for items of that kind. As for prisoners, I should have thought that with the Opposition Front Bench it is the hon. Gentleman who is the prisoner these days.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding recorded crime in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [28405]

I have received a number of representations on recorded crime. Although the level is still far too high, the reduction in the past two years has been the biggest for 40 years and I congratulate the police on their success in that achievement.

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that burglary is one of the most distressing crimes. Is he aware that last year the number of burglaries in Surrey fell by 21 per cent? Will he join me in paying tribute not only to the police but also to the often unsung heroes on the crime prevention panels who do so much good in the fight against crime?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for emphasising the importance of crime prevention panels. The truth is that we shall make the greatest progress in the fight against crime when we have a real partnership between the police and the public. The strides that have been made in coping with crime across the country, particularly in Surrey, demonstrate exactly what can be done.

How reliable are the crime statistics? Is it not a fact that in most constituencies victims of burglary are so sick of being burgled that they do not even bother to report it? The fact is that crime is spiralling and burglary is spiralling, but people do not bother to report it to the police.

It is a remarkable fact that when recorded crime was rising we did not hear any complaints from Labour Members about the reliability of the figures, but now that it is falling—as a result of effective work by the police—the Opposition are keen to rubbish the figures at any and every opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that the figures in his area are reliable, I suggest that he take up the matter with his chief constable.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ways in which the building regulations could be changed to ensure that new houses and flats are built in such a way as to be as secure as possible against burglary?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made considerable progress in recent years in incorporating crime prevention features in building design. I dare say that more than be done. As my hon. Friend suggests, I will take the matter up with my right hon. Friend.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that in 1994 the crime rate was still double what it was when Labour left office in 1979? A key reason for the doubling of crime has been the huge increase in the amount of harassment and intimidation of local communities by anti-social criminal neighbours. In view of that fact, will the Secretary of State recognise the total inadequacy of current provision? Instead of arguing complacently that there is no need for changes in the law of the kind that Labour has proposed, why does he not give our proposals the same wholehearted welcome as they received from the Police Superintendents Association for England and Wales on Tuesday and recognise that our proposals in "The Quiet Life" document tackle the root of the problem of anti-social, criminal activity in neighbourhoods?

Because the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the proposals that he announced this week add nothing to those measures which are already part of our law and those which we have announced already. If we take the two together, all that we have is a bit of pretence of precisely the kind that we have come to expect from the Labour party on this and on other matters.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that much of the recorded crime in my constituency and other coastal resorts throughout the country is committed by the thugs, louts and yobboes who have been imported into those areas to live in the hundreds of DSS hostels that have sprung up all over the place? Will he ensure that the Government take proper account of that fact in their response to the consultation paper on licensing DSS hostels?

My hon. Friend makes an important point and a large number of hon. Members will have great sympathy with him. I certainly accept that it should be taken into account in the response to the document to which he referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further support he will consider giving to local victim support groups. [28407]

Victim Support receives generous financial support from the Government. We increased our grant to the organisation last year by £1.6 million—from £8.4 million to more than £10 million—a rise of 20 per cent., and we have increased it further this year by another 8 per cent.

Is the Minister aware of the excellent work by the victim support group in Lambeth, particularly the pioneering work on trauma counselling and extra security measures for pensioners who have been burgled? Will he look again at the Home Office criteria for funding Victim Support nationally so that the new and innovative work by local groups can he funded by Home Office grants and given extra resources?

I am well aware of the wonderful work by Victim Support around the country and of the various innovative schemes run by enthusiastic volunteers. However, the Home Office does not fund individual schemes: we fund the national organisation, which distributes funding to local groups, and that is as it should be. I would not want to get involved in making hard decisions between individual local schemes but prefer to let the professional national organisation do it. As for the overall resources, I remind the hon. Lady that in the past eight years Victim Support has received additional Government funds of 55 per cent., 43 per cent., 21 per cent., 20 per cent., 28 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and the extra 8 per cent. this year. That is unprecedented financial support for any voluntary organisation.

What are the Government doing to support witnesses? The whole House will appreciate that when it is necessary for witnesses to come forward in order to convict guilty people we need to support those witnesses during the difficult time before and after they give evidence.

My hon. Friend is right. We recognise that many convictions depend on the evidence of witnesses. That is why we are keen to support the Crown court witness schemes that Victim Support is setting up throughout the country and to see whether any further measures need to be taken to deal with intimidation of witnesses. That is why we welcome the measures that the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking in the design and construction of all new courts to ensure that the needs of the victims are given every bit as much importance as those of the criminal.

Is the Minister aware that a good deal of Victim Support's work arises from crime associated with hard drugs and that heroin and crack dealing is killing young people in our communities? Nine heroin-associated deaths have already occurred in mid-Glamorgan this year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the police are given the necessary resources and direction to clear our streets of hard drug dealers?

I am surprised to hear such a question from the Principality, where there has been generous funding of police forces this year. Throughout the whole of England and Wales, our police service has been funded on average by an award of more than 3 per cent. Our police service does an excellent job in tackling drugs, but it is only one of the partners that we want to encourage to do more about drugs. That is why the central drugs co-ordination unit published its strategy for pulling together all sectors of Government to ensure that we concentrate on removing the temptation of drugs from young people in the first place and bearing down hard on those who do it. If the Opposition had supported many of the measures in the Criminal Justice Act that they voted against, perhaps the problem would not be so severe.

rose—

Order. Answers are becoming far too long.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the investigation into the bombing of the London office of the African National Congress in March 1982. [28408]

The Metropolitan Police have reviewed the evidence relating to this bombing in the light of statements by Mr. Craig Williamson and have submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. The more recent comments reportedly made in South Africa by Mr. Mike Leach are also being studied by the police.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I ask through him that the police interview Mr. Craig Williamson and that extradition proceedings be considered? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Mike Leach, to whom he referred, has alleged that British intelligence had prior notice of this terrorist outrage through the involvement of extreme Ulster loyalist elements? I believe that the inquiry for which I have asked the Prime Minister into the atrocity is essential. Will the Home Secretary further assure me that the Government will treat a terrorist outrage by the South Africans no less fiercely than terrorist outrages and bombings carried out by the IRA?

The hon. Gentleman should know perfectly well that these are matters for the police, and they are being investigated by the police. It might perhaps help if he had a little more confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of our police.

rose—

Order. Questions and answers have been inordinately long today and we have made little progress with Home Office questions. I am extremely disappointed that Members who have questions on the Order Paper have not been called because of long questions and very, very long answers.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28427]

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour's proposals for tough and effective action against criminal and anti-social neighbours have been widely welcomed as a sensible attempt to tackle a problem which causes misery to thousands of people? Given the failure of the Government's policies on law and order, will the Prime Minister now adopt our policies?

The hon. Lady right touches on a problem which concerns many people. As she will know, we have taken action on that problem. Nothing in the proposals from the Labour party adds to that action; they are merely window dressing on Labour's part.

Will my right hon. Friend today consider Gerry Adams's prediction of the increase in terrorism and Shell Oil's capitulation to terrorism?

I think that in whatever form it manifests itself terrorism is unpleasant and should be resisted.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that there are those within the Conservative party who are destabilising the Government and damaging the country?

When we were discussing Question Time I made a prediction—and I am usually right—that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would not pick this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an honourable friend in every sense of the word. His letter shows that few men are blessed with better personal friends than he is to me. I am immensely grateful for his continued support. His letter also shows that he is deeply concerned for the Northern Ireland peace process, to which he has contributed a very great deal.

If the questions are occasionally predictable, it is because the targets are also so predictable. It surely comes to something, does it not, when a Cabinet Minister is driven to writing to The Times about divisions in the Government without even telling the Prime Minister? If even Cabinet Ministers decide that the bitter in-fighting is damaging the national interest, will not the people of Britain conclude that the Conservative party is no longer fit to govern the country?

I seem to have noticed today that the former deputy leader of the Labour party had a little bit of bitter in-fighting of his own about the right hon. Gentleman's education policy. I also seem to recall that there was rather more in-fighting. Labour's education spokesman wrote to his colleagues at the end of last year:

"We are opposed to schools opting out … nor is there any intention that GM status should continue."

Does my right hon. Friend remember the massive battles that we had in the House some 15 years ago when we first removed the subsidies from British Steel? Does he also remember the massive opposition from Labour Members when we privatised British Steel? Is it not as a result of privatisation that we are today in a position in which British Steel can turn in £500 million of profits and export a product throughout the world against the toughest competition in the world? Should not Labour Members hang their heads in shame for opposing one of the most important policies for British industry?

I seem to recall some very rich opposition—not least, as I recall, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—to the proposal to privatise British Steel. The general proposition put forward by the Opposition was that it was totally irrelevant to the future of British Steel, that it was produced entirely for ideological reasons and that it would do no good. From an industry which was collapsing, it is now one of the most successful industries in this country and in Europe. That has happened because of privatisation and our determination to ensure that industry is in private hands and efficient.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28428]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that next month is supposed to see the end of six years house arrest for the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? Is he further aware that last week her British husband was refused a visa to go there and join in her 50th birthday celebrations? Will the Prime Minister make it unmistakably clear to the military rulers of Burma that trade with this country cannot flourish so long as there is such a basic denial of human and democratic rights?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Most people will have their own very crisp views of the present regime in Burma. It is unacceptable, and so is its behaviour. I warmly commend the right hon. Gentleman's efforts and support for the former Burmese Prime Minister, which is richly merited. Six years' detention is indefensible by any yardstick whatever and an offence against her human rights. We have made that crystal clear to the Burmese and will continue to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28429]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under a Conservative Government parents have been given the right to choose where to educate their children? Will he therefore congratulate all those parents in the Labour party who have been courageous enough to choose grant-maintained or selective schools even though Labour's bogus education policy would destroy them?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I support the right of every parent in the country to choose the appropriate school for their child. I just wish that some of those who exercise the choice themselves would ensure that it remains equally free for every other parent in the land. The proposals that the Labour party produced today are very badly named—"Hypocrisy and Mediocrity" should have been the title of its plans.

On the subject of Brent Spar, there is a good deal of speculation in Scotland concerning its eventual destination and it has been suggested that it is likely to end up on the lower Clyde. If that is so, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that all safety regulations will be adhered to during its dismantling?

First, let me say that I deeply regret Shell's decision to cave in to misguided pressure from environmental groups and some foreign Governments. The plan for deep-sea disposal was ratified and agreed according to all the international obligations agreed with other Governments, and not a single Government objected to the plan until they succumbed to pressure from Greenpeace. I shall make it clear to my colleagues across Europe that there will almost undoubtedly be a price to pay for their weakness in this respect.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28430]

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

In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to send a message of congratulation to all who, despite threats and intimidation, battled to expose the systematic abuse of power in Labour Monklands? Does he agree that now is the time for all those who have further information about what went on there—for instance, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—to present that information, or are they worried about what we shall see of the tip of this very nasty Labour iceberg?

Certainly, on the basis of the Black report, a remarkable number of relatives of Monklands councillors seem to have been employed by the council. Its personnel department was more like a family planning department.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28431]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister welcome the new right-wing Government in France and the decision of his new friend President Chirac to raise the minimum wage substantially?

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that it is of course a mistake there, as it would be anywhere else.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28432]

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

Will my right hon. Friend as the finest interpreters at Government communications headquarters to try to make sense of the contradictory gobbledegook contained in the document misleadingly entitled, "Diversity and Excellence: a new partnership for schools"? Is it not likely that beneath the honeyed words they will find the usual socialist disdain for schools which have managed to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of local education authorities?

It is certainly a very unusual document in many ways. The Labour leadership has opposed each and every education reform in recent years. It was against tests, performance tables and grant-maintained schools—not just in the distant past, but recently. Only last week, Labour's spokesman on Wales declared his opposition to grant-maintained schools. Last week it was Labour councillors penalising parents whose children are at grammar schools; today it is Lib-Lab Lincoln attacking children who win scholarships. No matter where we look, the reality is that Labour is opposed to choice, except in what it says; in what it does, there is to be no choice for anyone—except, of course, Labour Members themselves.

Instead of the foot-stamping petulance with which, we read, the Prime Minister has greeted his humiliation over Brent Spar, will he open his mind to a constructive suggestion? As both the Government and the oil companies have a huge financial interest in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore decommissioning, and as no one trusts either the Government or the oil companies, would it not be better to have an independent authority overseeing decommissioning of oil and gas installations? I know that the Prime Minister is somewhat embarrassed by independent inquiries, but would that not be a constructive way forward?

I am not entirely sure whether the people of Scotland will draw the conclusion that I draw—that the Scottish National party would really like the Brent Spar to be disposed of on land in Scotland at the expense of British and Scottish taxpayers. If that is the message, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it to every household that he has deceived at recent elections.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28433]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first grant-maintained school in London and that since then it has become oversubscribed? Does he welcome the fact that the slow learners on the Opposition Benches have suddenly realised that grant-maintained schools are successful and popular with parents?

That is certainly true, but I am afraid that time after time Labour's leaders have voted against grant-maintained schools, Labour activists have voted campaigns against grant-maintained schools, and I doubt whether anyone will be gullible enough to believe that they can be trusted. I clearly recall the Labour education spokesman writing to his colleagues at the end of last year saying:

"We are opposed to schools opting out".