To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has held with the publishers of magazines for teenage girls to discuss a code of conduct for their publications; and if he will make a statement. [18982]

I recently met representatives of magazine publishers and retailers to discuss the widely expressed concerns about the suitability for young people of the material contained in some magazines for teenage girls.

On a day when the innocence of childhood is inevitably at the forefront of all our minds, may I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for the robust and tough position that he has taken in discussions with the publishers? May I urge him to continue in that vein? Does he agree that their claims merely to be offering information to young teenage girls are, at best, disingenuous, and that in reality they are using sex to boost sales?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. The more that I have learnt about the subject since he introduced the Periodicals (Protection of Children) Bill, the more I have realised that, whatever agony aunts and others may say, the material in question is not merely a sex education service. Sex is being used to make money, unfortunately in this instance at the expense of the innocence of children and young people. I think that my hon. Friend did us all a service in introducing his Bill and highlighting another area in which standards of public decency and morality are falling.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to ensure that the fire service is adequately resourced. [18983]

The financial provision for fire brigades is decided by fire authorities. They are obliged to set budgets which will enable them to comply with their statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947. Total finance available to local authorities for 1996–97 will increase by 3.3 per cent. over 1995–96.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the Chief Fire Officers Association has taken the unprecedented step of writing to all Members complaining about a shortfall of over £80 million between the current expenditure of the fire service and the formal allocations as expressed in the revenue support grant? The Fire Brigades Union has consequently warned of a crisis whereby the fire brigades will be unable to meet their statutory minimum standards of firefighting, rescue and other emergency services. Will the Government intervene to ensure that the fire service is given adequate resources, bearing it in mind that Government negligence could be putting lives at risk?

The 3.3 per cent. increase in finance that will be available to local authorities in the next financial year is clearly sufficient to enable proper provision to be made for fire authorities and for the fire service. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Audit Commission, in its report on the fire service, found that savings of up to £67 million a year—that is 5 per cent. of total expenditure on the service—could be saved if efficiency improvements were made.

I recognise the increased funding to the fire services and the fact that there could be increased efficiency, but will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a resourcing problem, based on the cost of future pension provision? The structure needs to be examined to ensure that more and more finance will go directly to help fighting fires rather than to paying for pensions. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that and return to the House with his response?

We have indeed considered that. It was as a consequence of the requirement to fund pensions that special extra provision was made for the financing of pensions in this year's settlement. Cheshire county council has a 3.1 per cent. increase in its overall budget in 1996–97 as compared to 1995–96, and I believe that that enables it to make provision for funding its fire service.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend nationality legislation to allow the transmission of citizenship to the grandchildren of British citizens; and if he will make a statement. [18984]

None. We remain of the view that, as a general rule, British citizenship should not be transmitted beyond the first generation born abroad.

I am disappointed by that response. I am raising this issue on behalf of the many hundreds of thousands, if not now millions, of British citizens who work and live overseas. If they have children, those children are British, but if they, in turn, live abroad and have children, nationality will not be transmitted to the grandchildren of the first generation, save by grace and favour on the part of the Home Secretary. That situation is causing real concern. We have asylum problems, and there does have to be a cut-off, but the grandchildren of British citizens should be allowed to remain British.

The position—as it was deemed right by the House in the 1970s, and supported by the Labour party in its Green Paper—is that citizenship should be a mixture of rights and duties, that there should be some commitment on the part of those who seek to acquire it and that there must be some concern and interest with the country of their choice. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not able to give him the assurances that he is seeking, but, as he knows, there are certain exceptions to the rule. If he has an individual case that he would like me to consider, I should be pleased to do so.

None the less, will my hon. Friend ensure that people who work abroad are made aware of the position? My first grandson was born this week. His mother went to considerable trouble to come home from Spain to ensure that he was born here so that a problem would not arise when his—Edward Thompson's—children come to be born, perhaps somewhere else in the world. It is incumbent on us to ensure that British people working abroad should go to as much trouble as necessary to come here to have their children.

I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. Certainly in his own family's case, the necessary actions were taken to ensure that citizenship would pass to the children. We look sympathetically at cases involving people who work—particularly in the interests of this country—abroad.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on LEK Partnership's conclusions in respect of HMP Doncaster and HMP Buckley Hall and their public comparator group. [18985]

The study by LEK evaluated the costs of private sector prisons with the most nearly comparable public sector prisons on 1993–94 data. The results showed that the cost per place was 21 per cent. lower for Doncaster and 26 per cent. lower for Buckley Hall than for comparable public sector prisons. The Prison Service has commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to update the study using 1994–95 data. I expect to have the findings by the end of this month.

Does the Minister acknowledge, on the evidence that has been provided by her Department, that private prison costs—per year, per prisoner—are £200 more than costs for Prison Service accommodation? When will she realise that she should scrap the privatisation of prisons and return to the use of state prisons?

Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman out of his confusion. He is quite wrong in the interpretation that he has given to the House. The costs that he quotes for public sector prisons do not take account of significant costs that the Prison Service meets centrally, such as clothing, equipment, materials, uniforms and training. Furthermore, those figures, which were based on 1994–95 data, do not take account of the high start-up costs in the private sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very strange that when private prisons, on a like-for-like basis, are cheaper and private escort agencies are very much cheaper than the service that is provided by the state, the Labour party still wants to have everything done by the state rather than by the private sector? May we have an assurance that the new prisons referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend a few weeks ago will be provided by the private sector and not by the state sector?

I can indeed confirm that the prisons that my right hon. and learned Friend announced will be financed through the private finance initiative. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is extraordinary that, when all the advantages lie with the private sector, the Opposition still say on ideological grounds that privatisation is not working. Privatisation was found to work by many studies and was recommended by General Learmont when he conducted his studies. People who have been to Blakenhurst, including Lord Longford, have praised that prison. There is uniform recognition that such prisons have added to the richness of prison life and are doing a good job at a decent cost—

Regimes.

Yes, regimes are part of the richness of prison life. The shadow Home Secretary clearly thinks it is funny when we talk about constructive activity. He thinks that education and work for prisoners is funny. That shows how serious the Opposition are about anything at all.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a catalogue of errors and blunders at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale? It seems to have a far worse record than other category C prisons. For example, 10 prisoners have not returned from authorised leave, and one ex-inmate described it as a time-bomb ticking away. Will the Minister instigate a full inquiry into the running of Buckley Hall by Group 4?

Buckley Hall performs well in a number of spheres and should be praised for that, but the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to particular concerns that have been expressed, and that the Prison Service is now investigating.

I shall take this slowly, so that we all understand. Will the Minister confirm that she has argued, on previous occasions and again today, that the 13.3 per cent. cuts proposed in the Prison Service over the next three years can be made from savings resulting from privatisation? Indeed, the Home Secretary has argued the same case. Will the Minister now admit that the truth, which has been confirmed in parliamentary answers from her Department via the Prison Service, is that, when like is compared with like, it costs £200 a year more to keep a prisoner in a privatised prison? Will she admit that what she said previously and her earlier answer today are wrong, and will she now tell the House how she is going to make 13.3 per cent. cuts over the next three years when all the evidence is that privatised prisons are a dearer option?

First, we have never said that all those savings will come from the private sector alone. We expect efficiency savings to be made across the Prison Service as a whole. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke very slowly, but I think that he was waiting for his own understanding to catch up with him. I made it abundantly clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that the particular figures that he quoted were not strictly comparable precisely because there are costs taken into account in one which are not taken into account in the other.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to fund developments in new technology to free police officers from paperwork and administrative duties. [18987]

The development of new technology for the police service is one of my highest priorities and resources are being provided accordingly. The private finance initiative has a major part to play in bringing forward new systems which will streamline the administrative burden on the police.

Is this not a Government who have piled one lot of paperwork on top of another through successive Criminal Justice Acts? Is this not a Government who have cut the number of police officers by 186 between September 1992 and March 1995? Is this not a Government who plan to cut capital expenditure next year by £23 million? Are those not prime examples of the Government saying one thing but doing another?

That was a prime example of an hon. Member being handed a question which he did not understand and reading it out verbatim. If he bothers to look at the facts, he will find that we are revolutionising police work by new systems—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If the hon. Gentleman bothers to look at the facts, he will see that we are revolutionising police work by the introduction of the new national automated fingerprint identification system, NAFIS, costing £100 million; of the Phoenix police national computer, also at enormous cost; and of the new digital radio systems for the police, on which development work is proceeding apace, which will cost about £500 million. All in all, we have spent £750 million on police technology during the past five years and we expect to spend the same during the next five years.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that detailed and helpful response to the original question. Does he accept that closed circuit television is also a new technology, the installation of which in town centres can be of immense benefit to the police in reducing and deterring crime? Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically an application that is shortly to be submitted to his Department by Macclesfield borough council and the Cheshire constabulary for the installation of closed circuit television in Macclesfield, a development that is widely supported by retailers, local people and their Member of Parliament?

The people of Macclesfield have no better advocate for their CCTV system than my hon. Friend. We are not just sympathetic to CCTV technology; we have positively encouraged it, with the £5 million of taxpayers' money that we put into the scheme last year and the £15 million that we are putting into it this year. With the future promises of expenditure on CCTV, we believe that we can have a further 10,000 CCTV cameras around Britain.

And in Macclesfield?

We shall consider carefully all applications, including that from Macclesfield, and the hundreds of others that I expect to receive.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received from the Foreign Secretary his decision supporting India as a candidate for designation as a country where there is in general no serious risk of persecution. [18988]

It is not the practice to disclose ministerial correspondence between Departments, but I can confirm that the proposal to designate India and the other six countries, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, represents the joint view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Is it not extraordinary that the Government are so reluctant to reveal when the Foreign Secretary confirmed that India was to be a candidate for designation and that the Home Office and the Foreign Office have still not published the information on which that decision has been taken? Bearing in mind the reports of Amnesty International and Asia Watch that systematic and serious human rights violations are taking place in virtually every state in the Indian union, a popular insurrection has been under way in Kashmir since 1990 and serious human rights violations take place on an almost daily basis in Punjab, is that not an extraordinary scenario, in which neither the Home Secretary nor the Foreign Secretary can say that this is a country where there is no general risk of persecution?

It has never been the case that where a country is declared to be generally safe, we say that there is therefore no risk whatever to any individual within that country. We have made it clear, and I should like to make it clear again, that individual applications for asylum will be treated on their merits and that it will not be the case that, just because an applicant comes from a designated country, the application will therefore be refused in every circumstance. Even at the moment, from those countries from which we refuse a high percentage of applications—98 to 99 per cent.—a small number still get through. We would not expect that position to change.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, while those who have a good case for asylum—even though their country is on the designated list—will be received into Britain as, rightly, they always have been, many of my constituents with ties and family in India will greatly resent the inference of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that India is not a friendly, democratic country and one with which we should have good relations?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can only echo what he said. The designated list is designed to enable us to deal with countries that produce a large number of applications, of which a large percentage are found to be without foundation, and which are generally recognised as safe. That does not—I say this again because I do not want any misunderstanding on this point—negate the individual claimant's right to have his or her claim fully and properly considered.

I fully understand the concerns, rattlings and prejudice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about the Indian situation. Does the Minister agree that Pakistan's treatment of minorities is worse—the country that my hon. Friend blindly supports?

I can only repeat that if individuals from Pakistan. India or any other country on the list can make a case that shows that they individually have a well-founded fear of persecution, they will be looked after according to our time-honoured tradition of being a haven.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to improve the co-ordination and promotion of crime prevention initiatives. [18989]

A new Crime Prevention Agency has been set up to promote the co-ordination of crime prevention strategy and the effective delivery of crime prevention initiatives on the ground where it really matters.

Does the Minister agree that, although it is essential that no effort is spared in catching and bringing criminals to justice, crime prevention is still very important? Is he aware that in King's Lynn a comprehensive CCTV scheme is now in place and that it has already had a remarkable impact in reducing crime? Will he join me in paying tribute to the borough council, the police and local business men who got the scheme off the ground? Further to the characteristically robust question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I suggest that he contacts the borough council in King's Lynn to find out how it is done.

The last suggestion of my hon. Friend might be rather dangerous. Our hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) does not need to do that; he can get the Home Office guide, which we have helpfully produced so that all who wish to install CCTV can see how it is done. I believe that it quotes the example of King's Lynn, which is famous for its success in CCTV. Of course, CCTV is not only in King's Lynn but in Fakenham, Norwich, Breckland and the Breckland five towns of Thetford, Dereham, Attleborough, Swaffham and Watton.

Is it not time to tighten up with stringent mental health and suitability checks before any application for a gun licence is approved?

We should first wait to find out the full facts before any hon. Member jumps to conclusions about what the solutions may be in future. All I can say, judging by the information that I have had so far—we should await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland today—and having looked at the recommendations of the Firearms Consultative Committee, is that I have not seen anything that could have prevented yesterday's tragedy. All of us, as legislators and politicians, should be humble enough to accept that some things may be beyond our ability to solve or control.

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that on top of all the very important initiatives that have already been placed on record by the Home Secretary, it is also important to have one more try with the BBC, with those who produce films and videos and, in particular, those who license them, because there seems no doubt that they have a copy-cat effect in many cases? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the film "Natural Born Killers" should not just be temporarily placed back but be put in the waste bin for ever?

My hon. Friend has made a characteristically correct point, which the House should consider carefully. Comment overnight has tended to focus on weapons and their availability and use, but perhaps we should also look at the beginning of the cycle, and ask what makes someone want to commit such an act in the first place. I have read in history books that many people returned from the first and second world wars with a lot of weapons, but only in the past 20 years, during which films and television have shown violence of this nature, have such incidents taken place.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has evaluated on the correlation between social and economic conditions and crime. [18990]

A wide range of Government and independent studies on that subject have been evaluated by my Department, including recently published Home Office research by Graham and Bowling into why some young people commit crime.

Is there not a close and direct correlation between unemployment, especially youth unemployment, and crime, notably violent crime—a correlation that Conservative Members have consistently denied? If I am wrong about that, will the Home Secretary tell me why this year, for the first time, the police grant includes an element that specifically addresses youth unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken: research has not uncovered any link between unemployment levels and crime. However, this is one of the most arid arguments that it is possible to have. We recognise that unemployment is a social evil, whether or not it causes crime, and we pursue policies that bring unemployment down. The Labour party pursues policies—such as the introduction of the social chapter and the minimum wage—that increase unemployment. That can be seen from the figure for youth unemployment in France, of 27.7 per cent., and that for Spain, of 38.2 per cent., which is double the figure in this country.

Is it not outrageous that many people suggest that all those who are unemployed, and all those on low incomes, become criminals? That is an insult to the many law-abiding citizens who are unemployed, often through no fault of their own. Unemployed people should not all be put in the same category.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The vast majority of unemployed people are law-abiding citizens, and it casts a slur on them to suggest that unemployment is in any sense an excuse for crime.

While nothing could or should excuse the commission of crime, does the Home Secretary agree that high unemployment levels, especially among young people, contribute considerably to increasing the number of people who are tempted into a criminal life? Was not Lord Whitelaw—another Conservative Home Secretary—entirely correct when he said exactly that?

The question originally put by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was about research. Research has not uncovered any link between unemployment and crime—particularly violent crime, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I repeat: if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is so keen to reduce unemployment, why does he not persuade his party to abandon its policies on the social chapter and the minimum wage—and, indeed, the policies that would consign 16 to 18-year-olds straight from school to the dole queue? Unlike the Government, the hon. Gentleman's party would not make training compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds, and would encourage them to become unemployed.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, during the 1930s, when more than 20 per cent. of the work force was unemployed, crime was at almost its lowest ever point? In the context of his last answer, will he join me in congratulating Kent training and enterprise council on its current remarkable programme under which several hundred youngsters from the worst and most difficult conditions, many of them with criminal records, are given work experience courses to prepare them for training? It includes, where necessary, physically getting them out of bed in the morning.

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the levels of unemployment and crime in the 1930s. I am happy to join him in endorsing the excellent work that is being carried out by Kent training and enterprise council.

Where there are sink estates and deprived social conditions, does the Secretary of State agree—to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)—that the constant flow of violence via television and video contributes to the culture of violence?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of sympathy for the general view with which he began his question. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering making the chip to which the hon. Gentleman referred available in this country. The hon. Gentleman asked about the British Board of Film Classification. He and I co-operated on strengthening the legislation that deals with such matters. It makes greater the ease and availability of judicial review for the board's decisions, and anyone who feels aggrieved by the decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred can take that avenue.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Audit Commission in relation to police patrolling. [18991]

I recognise the value to the public of effective patrols by the police. I therefore welcome the report and we and the police service will look carefully at its recommendations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Audit Commission's conclusion that traditional beat-style policing needs to be nurtured? Does he also agree that that type of policing is highly effective in dealing with street crime and vandalism, and that that view is widely shared by the public, not least my constituents in Uxbridge?

That view is shared by the constituents of every hon. Member. Not only do the Government agree that beat patrolling has a valid role to play and should be nurtured, but we have taken positive steps to enhance it further. It is not just the extra 15,000 officers whom we have recruited since 1979 that is proof of our nurturing of the police service, or the extra 17,000 civilians who have released more bobbies for the beat, but the commitment to 5,000 more officers specifically to enhance the visible presence on the streets which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised and for which we have started to give out funding.

Does the Minister accept that the importance of patrolling is that it reinforces the traditional and mutual confidence between the police and the public? Does he accept that, to allow the police to concentrate on their job and to reassure the public, it is important to create a real partnership between the police, the local authority and the local community to fight crime, as advocated by the Labour party? Will he commend the local authorities that have joined local police to adopt such an approach and stop obstructing the legislative framework that they need and which was recommended by the Government's own Morgan report?

The hon. Gentleman should get into the latter part of the 20th century. The Morgan report is so old hat these days that local authorities and police partnerships are being created all over Britain without compulsion or regulation. The hon. Gentleman must decide. He is inconsistent. He asks me to acknowledge the tremendous success of partnerships and goes on to say that we must have statutory regulation to create partnerships. It is illogical nonsense. We do not need legislation because, throughout the country, partnerships are being created by voluntary means. People come together to help the police. They know that that is in their best interests. That is our policy, and it is working.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of burglars are given a custodial sentence; and what is the average length of time spent in prison by such offenders. [18992]

On the basis of a recent sample, a custodial sentence is imposed on 67 per cent. of people convicted of domestic burglary in the Crown court and on 22 per cent. of people convicted in magistrates courts. Average sentence lengths were 16.8 months in the Crown court and 3.9 months in the magistrates courts. Roughly half the sentence passed is spent in prison.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures illustrate the need for courts not only to give longer sentences, but to give exceptionally long sentences to repeat offenders? May I urge him to press on with his proposals to introduce minimum sentences for repeat offenders and to reject the views of the judiciary?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the public need greater protection from persistent burglars' activities. By and large, the sentences passed by the courts on persistent burglars are inadequate. That is why there is a strong case for the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences for such burglars.

What is the success rate of such sentences, compared with non-custodial sentences, in deterring future criminal behaviour? When does the Home Secretary plan to come before the House with a serious programme of commitments to reparation schemes in the community? Why does he insist on withdrawing funding from preventive schemes that have a record of working?

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that the recidivism rate for people leaving prison is lower than that for people who have community sentences passed on them or who have probation orders made in respect of them. When one takes into account the fact that people sentenced to prison tend to be the most serious offenders, sentenced for the most serious offences, that is a surprising fact and not, I suspect, the answer that he thought he would receive.

Is not burglary a crime in respect of which there is a much higher repeat offending level? In those circumstances, is not it clear that the present sentencing level is an inadequate deterrent?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the public are especially at risk from persistent, prolific burglars. It is in relation to those persistent offenders that the case for minimum mandatory sentences is strongest.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 February, Official Report, column 1126, when it was first disclosed that two unidentified fingerprints were found on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater; and if he will make a statement. [18993]

The solicitors knew in November 1988, if not before, that there were two unidentified fingerprints. Papers disclosed by the Crown Prosecution Service on 22 December 1994 included the information that those prints were on the bicycle.

I still do not think that the Minister is facing up to the facts. It was 16 years, not nine—although nine is long enough—before unidentified fingerprints were disclosed in the Carl Bridgewater case. Who knows? As the Minister is probably aware, today is the fifth anniversary of the release of the Birmingham Six. Many people regard the Carl Bridgewater case as a litmus test of whether we have learnt any lessons from the mistakes of the past. The progress so far has not been promising.

I am sorry, but I dispute that. The hon. Gentleman must know that, following the provisional conclusions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that this matter should not be referred back, the solicitors for the applicants were asked to make further representations. They have done so in part and we await hearing from them as to any other representations that they wish to make before a final decision is taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of his removal of all training requirements on the provision of an effective probation service. [18994]

The opportunity has now been provided to establish, with the profession, a flexible training scheme designed to meet the needs of a modern probation service.

Does the Minister recognise that the lack of appropriate training puts both probation officers and the public at risk? Which professional associations support his view on this matter?

I am very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Baroness Blatch has written to representatives of the management, of the profession and of higher education and expects to meet them shortly to establish exactly the sort of flexible training scheme that the probation service needs. The work of the probation service is much too important for these sort of party points.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new arrangements will facilitate the right people coming into the probation service, such as those coming out of the armed forces or the police, who will do a far better job than people who are merely social workers?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the disciplines required are criminology, psychology and a whole host of others, including some training in sociology. To tell highly qualified people who apply to join the service, "You are fine, but now you have to go and do two years' social work training," is not the way to get the right people into the profession.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19012]

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.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and others in the House in expressing our outrage and horror at the appalling deaths and killings in Dunblane yesterday?

Yesterday was an event of almost unimaginable horror. We can only begin to guess at the impact it will have upon the families and the whole community. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in extending our sympathy to the families of the children and their teacher who were killed and to the children and the other teachers who were injured in yesterday's attack. Many questions will have to be addressed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a fuller statement at the end of Question Time.

May I agree with what the Prime Minister has said and simply add this: Britain today is a nation in mourning. Our senses are in a state of shock, bewildered at the sheer horror of what happened. Not war, nor a catastrophe of nature, nor human error was this, but a massacre of innocents without cause and without reason. How many parents last night will have clutched their own children to them, looking at them differently and imagining the pain which, for others, is all too real?

Sometimes, after a tragedy, there is little we can say that we feel will bring comfort to the people concerned. After yesterday's tragedy, I believe that that is a feeling that everyone in this House will understand. Words seem inadequate; I feel that today.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19013]

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

In the wake of the appalling tragedy in Dunblane yesterday, will my right hon. Friend urge the media to exercise the maximum possible restraint to allow that community to grieve in private?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in that request. There is a code of practice on privacy for such occasions. I hope very much that that code of practice will be rigorously observed on this occasion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19014]

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

As someone who, before entering the House, lived in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil not far from Aberfan, may I convey the sympathy of Wales to the people of Dunblane and to all the families who have suffered loss? Does the Prime Minister accept that playing with guns can at times mean playing with lives? It should always be a certainty that neither personal indulgences nor vested interests come before assuring the safety of communities and the avoiding of tragedies such as the tragedy that happened yesterday.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's early words will be well received everywhere. On the subject of gun control, clearly my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will wish to consider the implications of the incident for any future changes in firearms control. There is of course a Firearms Consultative Committee that, as a statutory body, constantly keeps legislation under review. Its purpose is to review the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I know that it issued a statement this morning saying that it does not propose to express a view on the matter in advance of the conclusions of the fatal accident inquiry, but that it will want to consider the implications for future firearms legislation or practice.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19015]

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

Speaking as a former teacher and in the aftermath of the awful tragedy yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reinforce the tributes that are rightly paid to head teachers and teachers who put the welfare and safety of their children above all else?

It is not very many weeks ago that the House and the country were mourning the death of another teacher, Mr. Lawrence, who was murdered outside his school by being stabbed to death. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has told me, both last night and this morning, of the courage of teachers at the school. I particularly single out the courage and performance of the headmaster, Mr. Taylor, who had appalling circumstances to deal with yesterday, but, I am informed, dealt with them with the greatest possible courage in every respect. I am happy to join my hon. Friend, himself a former head teacher, in that tribute.

Dunblane is a small, close-knit community and no doubt that closeness will stand it in good stead as it grieves over the appalling slaughter of innocent children and their dedicated teacher. Will the Prime Minister convey to the people of Dunblane that their grieving is shared by the whole country; every parent in the land is grieving with them? In particular, will he convey to the people of Dunblane the horror and sadness of my constituents and Londoners across our capital city who feel today that they are part of that small, close-knit community?

I shall happily convey the hon. Lady's thoughts when I have the opportunity of visiting Dunblane tomorrow. She speaks for the attitude of every parent in the country. For a small number of parents, yesterday was a day of horror that they could never have imagined. The thought has flitted across the minds of every other parent in the country that it might have been their son or their daughter on that occasion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19016]

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

In common with many colleagues in the House, I went home last night to see my own children for exactly the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I associate myself with everything that has been said. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his sense of priorities, which led him to take a day out this week to attend the conference against terrorism in Egypt? Terrorism so often—and deliberately—causes the sort of grief, slaughter and horror that was caused by one evil mad man yesterday. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to play a full part in the international war against that most evil of activities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh was a very useful and worthwhile occasion. It was the first time that I can recall when so many Heads of Government from different parts of the world met specifically to deal with the problems of terrorism and how to curtail and defeat it. The summit not only condemned terrorism in very strong temis but, more practically, laid the foundations for a programme of international co-operation in anti-terrorist activities. I think that everyone will welcome that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19017]

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

Further to the Prime Minister's answer to a previous question, I too share the grief of the mourning families in Dunblane. Does he share my concern that journalists and other pundits have spent much time, recently, blaming Israel for its attitude to the Hamas terrorists, just as they blamed the Prime Minister for holding back the peace in Northern Ireland, when they should put responsibility on the terrorists who continue the terror?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree, without qualification, with everything that he has said.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rule of law should always prevail in a democracy? On this day, above all others, as we discuss the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, does he agree that the House should agree unanimously to the measures? Does he agree also that terrorism and violence by the gun or by the bomb should be rooted out wherever they occur?

I think that that would be the unanimous view in dealing very severely with terrorists. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has proved indispensable as part of our armoury against terrorism. It is vital that its powers are continued by the House.

The Prime Minister's decision to visit Dunblane will be deeply appreciated by everyone in Scotland. Does he accept my assurance that we shall all co-operate to give the fullest support to that community in whatever action is necessary in view of this tragic and terrible event?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I hope that everyone will understand that I visit Dunblane as a representative of the House: it is in that spirit that I conduct my visit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terrible tragedy will focus the prayers of the nation on mothering Sunday this weekend? Does he agree that it would be a proper mark of respect if people observed a period of silence on Sunday to remember the children and their teacher and to pray together as a nation?

I believe that, now and up to and beyond Sunday, many people will remember the events at Dunblane. Perhaps it would be particularly appropriate if the churches were just a little more crowded on Sunday.

As one who was married in Dunblane cathedral and who therefore regards it as a place of particular happiness and serenity cruelly shattered, I support the Prime Minister's decision to visit Dunblane tomorrow on behalf of the House. I add the thanks of the House to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), for the way in which they represented the interests of the House yesterday to that grieving community.

As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, those matters will need to be examined, and I assure him that we shall do so with an open mind. On his first point, I echo the tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who, together, visited Dunblane yesterday. That was appropriate, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he did on that occasion.

While we contemplate this horror, is it not wonderful that the love of children has brought the House together? I pray that it will do so more often.

Sometimes our political disputes, whether they involve great or small matters, seem very petty beside human matters. I think that this is one such occasion.

I think that we will take the statement now.