asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation enabling him to ban media coverage of terrorist activities; and if he will seek the co-operation of other countries in similarly preventing terrorists gaining media coverage for their aims and opinions.

No, Sir. Section 4 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 requires the IBA to ensure that its programmes include nothing which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder, or to be offensive to public feeling. The BBC accepts the same obligations under its 1981 licence and agreement with the Home Secretary. Within this framework it is a long-standing principle in this country that the broadcasting authorities and the press should have full editorial responsibility for the content of what they broadcast or publish.

Is it not precisely what terrorist organisations require when they commit such outrages that, immediately they do so, the media tell the nation that those organisations committed them? Is it not surprising and even ludicruos that in the Republic of Ireland, which has tried to cut the publicity given to IRA extremism by not allowing any comment on television, viewers can simply switch to British channels and discover precisely what is going on and which organisation is alleged to have committed the offence?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. As to the first part of his question, the Government and the broadcasting authorities accept that the latter are appointed as trustees of the public interest in broadcasting and that they must carry a large measure of responsibility for what they do. As to the second part of his question, my hon. Friend will be aware that in the Republic of Ireland there has been a long tradition of media censorship in one form or another, which I am sure he would agree would be unacceptable in this country.

Although I accept fully what the Minister said about editorial responsibility, is he nevertheless aware of the enormous that exists in India as a result of the coverage of the murder of Mrs. Gandhi, and especially the coverage of the views of those who support the organisation which was apparently responsible for the murder? Will he consult his Foreign Office colleagues and the Attorney-General to see whether the law can be strengthened so as to deal with what may be incitement but what is at present impossible to prove as such?

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, and I am aware of the sort of programme to which he refers. This is very much a matter for the broadcasting authorities rather than for the Government. However, I should make this observation: what is broadcast in the United Kingdom may be perfectly acceptable here, but if others seek to use it elsewhere, it may have different effects.

Although I accept the good intentions of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), does the Minister agree that it is dangerous to treat the symptoms of the disease rather than the cause, and that we must achieve political settlements of those issues to prevent terrorism in the first place?

That goes extremely wide of the question, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

May I ask my hon. Friend, who was a Northern Ireland Minister, whether, without resorting to censorship, there should not be consultations between the two Governments and the broadcasting authorities to see whether they can keep in step in any action to counter what Dr. Garret FitzGerald has called the "common enemy"?

My hon. Friend will be aware that discussions on all sorts of issues between the Governments of the Republic and of the United Kingdom have combined effects. My hon. Friend's question seeks to change the remit for public service and all other broadcasting in the United Kingdom, and I believe that we should take care before we do that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official complaints about police behaviour have been received during the miners' strike; and how many of these concern accusations of assault.

I understand that from 13 March 1984 to 26 February 1985, 549 complaints were made against the police in connection with policing the current dispute and 111 were withdrawn; 256 contained allegations of assault by police officers.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that as charges of unlawful assembly made by the police against Yorkshire miners have been dropped, no further use will be made of that archaic and discredited law against miners and their supporters?

I give no such confirmation. The fact that in a particular case a matter is not proceeded with, proves nothing about the importance and usefulness of that offence in other circumstances.

Among many wild allegations made during the miners strike are some that the police have been tapping trade unionists' telephones. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we know that he cannot confirm or deny individual cases, but is there some way in which he can try to allay those suspicions and lay to rest the allegations generally?

I am aware of the allegations that were made in a television programme which was not ultimately broadcast. The conduct of authorised interception is subject to continuing review by the monitor of interception arrangement, presently the distinguished Law Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. In the light of recent allegations, however, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked Lord Bridge to examine the relevant papers to determine whether authorisations since May 1979 have named the individuals in question and, if so, whether those authorisations have been sought and given in accordance with the procedures and criteria in the Birkett report of 1957 and the White Paper of April 1980. Lord Bridge's findings will be made public so far as that can be done without damage to national security. As the allegations made in the programme relate predominantly to the period before May 1979, my right hon. Friend is seeking the agreement of the former Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries involved that this review should, in addition, cover their periods of office as far as is necessary.

Were any of the 111 police complaints which were originally put down and subsequently withdrawn not proceeded with because of consultations with the Police Complaints Board similar to the consultations that I had, when I was told that I could not at that stage go ahead with any complaints about police action in South Yorkshire because of legal proceedings?

As I understand it, the complaints were withdrawn voluntarily. A number continue. As I have said, it is anticipated that the board's annual report will give information in respect of complaints considered in 1984. The report will be published in early May.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the actions of the police are widely praised in South Derbyshire, where they have been assisting my constituents to go to work? Does he agree that the police have behaved throughout with dignity, restraint and good humour, even when drunken hooligans have been chucking bottles at them, as we saw on television at the weekend? Does he agree that if agitators turn up looking for trouble they are lucky to be living in this country, where they do not get what they deserve?

With the welcome return to work of many more miners, it is as well to remember that those who preceded them and those who never stopped working were able to make that choice because of the steadfast resolve of the police to contain and defeat violence and intimidation by a relatively small number of striking miners.

In view of the important inquiry that Lord Bridge is carrying out, and its clear relevance to the legislation which the Secretary of State proposes to put before the House next Wednesday, will he now withdraw that Bill until the House has Lord Bridge's report?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, not for me.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that almost every problem arising out of the policing of this dispute has arisen because of the union's failure to follow guidelines on picketing? Will he introduce legislation as early as possible to ensure that in future unions encouraging mass picketing bear the cost of policing?

I agree that if the union had complied with its guidelines there would have been no policing or law and order problem, and that the large number of policemen who have had to go on to the picket lines would not have had to do so. As to my hon. Friend's second point, the review of public order that is taking place will consider all aspects of public order, not only in relation to what has occurred in the miners' strike. I shall take account of my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Home Secretary aware, arising from his earlier comments, that if the allegations that are made in the film "MI5's Official Secrets" are true, such activities are unacceptable in a democratic society? Is he further aware that the view must be that the kind of activities carried out by the special branch and security services, if the allegations are true, are subversive, and it is wrong that individuals such as the CND chairman and general secretary should be harassed in this way?

I am not prepared to join the hon. Gentleman in that speculative examination, but it is right that interception and surveillance should follow the procedures and criteria, and the definition of subversion supplied by Lord Harris as long ago as 1975 has stood the test of time and is the right one. I have no wish to defend any interception or surveillance going outside that. I have no reason to believe that it occurred, but Lord Bridge will look into the matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the more positive aspects of this dispute has been the fact that the police have been able to maintain the rule of law, despite tremendous provocation, and this is why they have such wide respect and support from the great majority of the British public?

I can agree to that without any reservation.

I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance notice of the announcement that he made today about the inquiry by Lord Bridge. That announcement and the letter that the Prime Minister has sent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are unclear, and, in so far as they are clear, are inadequate and unsatisfactory. First, is he aware that it does not — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a major statement, and the Opposition have the right to respond to it.

Order. It is not a statement. This is Question Time. I accept that the Home Secretary made a longish answer, and I am giving the right hon. Gentleman some scope.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the statement does not deal with the allegations of infiltration other than interception? Secondly, it does not deal with allegations of false classification of persons as being subversive. Thirdly, it does not deal with allegations that material obtained by MI5 has, against the principles of the Maxwell Fyfe directive, been used for party political purposes. Fourthly, it does not deal with unauthorised interception. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Mr. Speaker, I say, as a point of order, that if the Home Secretary—

Order. I do not think that any point of order arises. There seem to be rather a lot of notes in front of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will bear in mind that this is Question Time.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall put one or two more questions to the Home Secretary —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — because he has behaved improperly in making a major statement, in response to a planted supplementary question and the right of the Opposition must be protected in such circumstances.

Order. No, I am here to protect the rights of Back Benchers at Question Time. It is unfair to treat what is, after all, an answer to a question as a statement. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary had given a fairly long answer to the question. I have no idea whether it was planted. However, I ask him to put his questions briefly.

I shall do so, Mr. Speaker, but I put it to you that the Home Secretary has made a major statement about an important inquiry. Let me proceed with the question. I put it to the Home Secretary that Lord Bridge's inquiry seems to have terms of reference that are deliberately designed to produce the answer that the Government want and that it is now quite inappropriate, to proceed with the Interception of Communications Bill until Lord Bridge has reported. Above all, the country will not tolerate a cover-up on this matter. It wants the truth and we insist on it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take the point of order after questions.

The point of order is on this question.

Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall take the point of order afterwards, as is the usual practice.

I shall leave aside the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I am sure that, on reflection, he will regret what he said and the imputations of it. I have no doubt that Lord Bridge will conduct his inquiry quickly, as his compass is comparatively narrow. The timing of the Interception of Communications Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman asked some important and legitimate questions. He is right. The inquiry is related to interception, which is the area covered by Lord Bridge as the monitor. With regard to false classification being subversive, that will come directly within Lord Bridge's inquiry, as he will cover interceptions contrary to the criteria. Party political views will also be covered. Unauthorised interception will be a matter for the criminal law under the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Previously, it has not for the most part been covered by the criminal law.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order.

I have tabled Question No. 14 and the Home Secretary has answered it already.

If the hon. Gentleman will sit down we might get there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Civil Defence college, Easingwold, will issue a regular newsletter to local authorities.

We are aware of the importance of keeping local authorities and their emergency planning staff in touch with developments and are looking at how this might best be done. A newsletter is one of the possibilities under consideration.

In his discussions, will my hon. Friend consider informing local authorities which waste ratepayers' money on frivolities such as nuclear-free zones that their first duty is to protect their inhabitants and that there are means of injuring people other than by nuclear weapons?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Relatively few local authorities have followed the GLC's lead in dealing slavishly with nuclear-free zones. We intend to carry through the recently issued regulations to ensure that all local authorities take their statutory duties seriously and implement them.

If information on civil defence is to be given out, will the Minister bear in mind that this morning the early warning system in my constituency and neighbouring authorities in North-East Lancashire went off and that nobody knew what it was meant to be and took no notice of it?

I cannot think of a better reason for more active civil defence policies than obtain in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

In any publication such as this, will my hon. Friend ensure that due weight is given to civil emergencies as well as to military ones, as civil defence has an important role to play? The more we can get that message over to the public, the better.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will be aware that our prime purpose is to ensure that the preparations which local authorities are required to make by the 1983 regulations are made.

If the Minister is intent on disseminating information from Easingwold, will he ask local authorities to go one stage further and make available by newsletter or any other means they think most appropriate their detailed plans to interested members of the public in their areas? There is everything to be gained from making it clear what civil defence arrangements there are in local authority areas.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Local authorities are required to make preparations and councils in those authorities should be in a position to get to know them and give them wide publicity.

Would such a newsletter not provide an admirable opportunity to end the Government's dishonest and hypocritical policy of pretending that there is some defence to a nuclear attack and to point out the consequences of a nuclear winter, which make irrelevant all planning for evacuation, relocation or shelter, and, more importantly, that, if we want to remove the threat of nuclear war, participation in peace negotiations is the most important and urgent task?

The hon. Gentleman's observation reveals a complete confusion which is frequently seen in the minds of Opposition Members. The Government are talking about civil defence preparation, which is a humanitarian and essential precaution to be undertaken whatever may be the threat.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many local authorities take their civil defence responsibilities seriously and that many of them—this is true in Norfolk — feel that they are not receiving the support on training that they should from the Government? Will my hon. Friend look again at the ways in which we can give the maximum support to those local authorities which are doing, or trying to do, a good job on civil defence?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the very existence of Easingwold and its importance is for training. That establishment is the bedrock of the training system, but I shall do my best to ensure that more training facilities are made available.

the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from individuals and organisations concerning the proposed reorganisation of the management structure of the Metropolitan police.

I have received representations about various aspects of the reorganisation from six organisations and from a number of hon. Members.

Why were the consultative committees not consulted about the matter before the decision was taken in principle? Is there not a danger that the reorganisation, although aimed at decentralisation, will mean in some boroughs, although perhaps not in my own, that the consultative committees will find it more difficult to liaise with the police authorities at local level?

It is reasonable for the Commissioner to make arrangements about the internal organisation and management of the force in consultation with the police authority, but I agree that continued effective consultation arrangements are of great importance, and it is on those matters that there will be discussions with borough and district councils, community-police consultative groups and representatives of local communities about the arrangements in each area. I hope that they will lead to an arrangement that is satisfactory for all concerned.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that probably the best way to improve the management structure of the Metropolitan police would be for it to have an officer class, in the same way as the armed forces, specifically trained and recruited for that purpose?

I do not myself feel that that would be the most constructive way forward, but I understand the concerns reflected by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the countries from which there is pressure to emigrate to the United Kingdom.

There is pressure to emigrate to the United Kingdom from a number of parts of the world. Social, economic and political circumstances change and therefore the countries from where there is pressure to emigrate change over time. For example, from some parts of the Indian subcontinent there has been and is continuing pressure. Elsewhere, pressure fluctuates according to circumstances in the country concerned, such as political or social unrest.

Notwithstanding those facts of life, which I accept, will the Minister now state unequivocally that the long-standing British principles of the rights of families to come together where the breadwinner is, and the rights of male and female to join each other without discrimination in marriage, are not impaired? Will he undertake to overhaul the present immigration rules as they apply to those principles to ensure that they are adequate to meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, because many people, including the Commission on Racial Equality, do not think that they are?

Of course, men who are settled here have the right to have their wives and children join them, but those who apply for entry clearance in the Indian sub-continent must go through a process so that their claim to come here may be assessed. I have to say that some matters are overlooked. If a man chooses to come here on his own, we do not divide the family, and it must be recognised that half the people in the non-priority queue in Dacca at present are re-applicants. It would be stretching the imagination a bit to suppose that all those re-applicants are genuine in their claim, because it would mean that in every case the entry clearance officer and the appellate authorities were wrong as well. Therefore, those claims must be assessed, I am afraid, against a background of some fraud.

Will my hon. and learned Friend accept, without mincing words, that every immigrant who comes to this country either takes up a job, which we cannot afford, or goes on the welfare state, which we cannot afford, and that the vast majority of people in this country welcome our firm but fair strict immigration control policy?

I think that everybody in the House recognises that, obviously, we must have a firm but fair system of immigration control, and we cannot allow young people to come here and go straight on to the labour market at a time of high unemployment. I am sure that the vast majority of people in the House are as anxious as I am to see, for instance, that after we have tightened up on the work permit system, young men do not come here using marriage as a device. Unfortunately, it is plain that quite a number do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in the quantity of hard drugs seized by the police in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

Between 1979 and 1983 the quantity of heroin seized by the police increased by more than 12 times, and the amount of cocaine by two and a half times. The increase in the quantities of drugs seized by the police over the past five years, especially heroin, confirms the seriousness of the problem of drug misuse. The police are responding by giving increased priority to the investigation of drug and drug-related offences: the Government are equally determined to follow a firm and coherent strategy to tackle all aspects of drug misuse.

As my hon. Friend says, while those figures are a great credit to the police, they reflect the serious increase in drug trafficking. When is the committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is currently reviewing arrangements for drug operations, expected to report, and how regularly does that association hold a national drugs conference?

The Association of Chief Police Officers holds a drugs conference every year. That is a most helpful innovation. The committee will report in due course, but I cannot say precisely when. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that considerable changes have been made by the police in their operations, to reflect the increasing involvement of major criminals in drug-related offences, and it is estimated that up to half the time of regional crime squads is now being spent in dealing with serious drug conspiracies.

Is the Minister aware that at my advice bureau last Saturday five different groups of people came to me complaining about teenagers taking heroin in their communities, and that the problem in Merseyside is growing, and reaching epidemic proportions? Is he further aware that, while we welcome the Government's campaign to inform parents about the problems of drug taking, the parents of Merseyside are already well informed? The Liverpool Echo, if nobody else, has told them in its campaign what the problems are. Is the Minister aware that the problem is that, having identifed the problem, parents have difficulty in getting their son or daughter to a rehabilitation unit or a hospital, because there are no places?

The hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand the central problem of drug taking today, which is not that most people have reached the stage that they are so severely dependent on drugs that they need rehabilitation centres — although they are being established in increasing numbers up and down the country—but that they need advice, counselling and assistance. It is the purpose of the Government and the Merseyside regional health authority, working in collaboration with the local authorities, to provide this. That range of services is being developed, and I dare say that in his usual constructive way the hon. Gentleman is helping that process.

When my hon. Friend talks of providing rehabilitation services, will he accept that there needs to be adequate servicing for heroin addicts 24 hours a day in suitable places throughout the country?

It is plain that the Government are committed to developing a system of rehabilitation for hard drug addicts, and about £10 million has been produced in the past 12 months to facilitate that. It is also the case that the primary responsibility for providing health care services of this kind lies with the regional and district health authorities, and it is the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that that provision is made.

Will the Minister accept that, while people are happy to see the increased police success, the increased publicity and the increased amount of money for health funding, the missing link is the increased investment in Customs officers, sufficient to make sure that we do not have drugs in the country in the first place? Not until the numbers of Customs officers are satisfactory will we get to grips with this severe problem.

The hon. Gentleman is repeating the fallacy of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). He should look at the figures. A further 160 Customs officers have been recruited specifically to deal with drugs matters this year. The number of specialist intelligence officers employed to deal with heroin in the Customs service has nearly doubled and success of the Customs in seizing nearly 300 kilos of heroin last year is good evidence of the considerable success that they are achieving.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the Commission for Racial Equality to discuss its report on the administration of immigration control.

The Commission has not asked for such a meeting, but if it were to do so I should be happy to meet it.

Are the Government not appalled by the findings of the report, which make it clear that the administration of immigration control in the country is racist? What are the Government going to do about it?

I am certainly appalled, because the report is disappointing and does not address itself to the real problems with which we are faced. It is absurd that the report should not face the fact that there is more pressure to emigrate from some countries than from others. To deny this flies in the face of common sense. It is inevitable that more people from some countries will try to enter Britain when not entitled to do so than from others. This will obviously be reflected in the failure rate.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that there are many genuine immigration cases but that there are also many others where duplicity is practised? Is he aware that many of us feel that the Home Office just about gets it right and, if anything, errs on the side of leniency?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I think that our entry clearance officers carry out a difficult job with great expertise. Although, obviously, one wants them to have the best training and one should be considering the quality of training all the time, I am disappointed that so much time is spent by the writers of the report in, for instance, criticising the entry clearance officers for noting in their files remarks which I freely concede are unprofessional but certainly do not warrant stringing up entry clearance officers by their thumbs and flogging them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current number of reported cases of vandalism compared with the previous 12-month reporting period and five years ago.

In the 12 months to the end of September last year, the latest period for which figures are available, the police in England and Wales recorded 486,000 cases of criminal damage compared with 432,000 in the preceding 12 months and 320,000 during 1979.

While acknowledging that significant increase in vandalism, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that it is important to keep the first offender out of the criminal justice system, and is not one way of doing this to promote the use of juvenile liaison bureaux in local authorities throughout the country? Will he look favourably upon the development of one in my constituency?

I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last point, but I can assure him that it is part of our purpose, wherever possible, to keep juveniles out of the criminal justice system. For instance, a proposal has recently been published to ensure that cautioning procedures are put on a similar footing throughout the United Kingdom, and this will assist in the process that my hon. Friend wishes to continue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding his Department's assessment of security requirements involved in monitoring the communications of pressure groups.

I have made it clear on a number of occasions recently that peaceful political campaigning to seek changes in Government policy or to influence public opinion generally does not fall within the very strict criteria under which the interception of communications may be authorised. Those criteria, and the associated procedures and safeguards, are set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom", published on 7 February 1985, Cmnd. 9438.

Is the Home Secretary aware that we do not believe what he has just had to say? Have his civil servants told him about the letter that I sent him regarding Mr. and Mrs. Wallis of Old School House, Clopton, near Molesworth? They are both peace campaigners. Over a period of five days relatives and friends of theirs rang them only to be answered by an answerphone. Subsequently, those friends annd relatives found that the Wallis's had never had an answerphone in their home. In the Home Secretary's eyes their only so-called crime was that they were trying to get American missiles off British soil. Is it not a scandal that this dictatorial Government should go to such lengths to hound decent British people?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to come to that conclusion. He knows very well that it is not the practice to comment on individual cases. I do not for one moment accept the validity of his general observations. However, the Interception of Communications Bill, which the House will shortly be debating, will provide safeguards which have never before existed and which certainly did not exist when the Labour Government were in power.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if he is not watching these people, I want my money back?

Without going, as is customary, any further into these details, I can only say that my hon. Friend should not expect a refund.

Was that not a disgraceful question — [Interruption.] — a perfectly disgraceful question? How can the Home Secretary justify tapping the phone of an assistant to the leader of the Labour party — [Interruption.] Oh yes. That is what that programme showed. It means that a file on that woman now remains within MI5's records. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman justify the fact that a woman who is now a Labour Member has had her phone tapped? How can he justify the fact that the phone of a peace-loving representative of CND was tapped? How can all those instances of phone tapping be justified by the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and by senior Conservative Government officials when the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that every one of them was an intrusion into the civil rights of ordinary citizens? Why does he not come to the House and make a statement instead of hiding behind a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the allegations made in the television programme, to which reference has been made, he will know perfectly well from what I have already said that they will be looked at by Lord Bridge, the judicial monitor, who will report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman will also know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reiterated the statement that has been repeatedly made that there is no telephone interception of Members of Parliament, and that if such telephone interception were to become necessary or desirable, a statement would be made to the House before it was done.

Earlier this afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend made quite lengthy references to the television programme that has so far not been seen by viewers, but which sparked off many of the allegations concerning the alleged monitoring of pressure groups. As we have now had lengthy parliamentary exchanges, a screening of the programme in Parliament, and a statement this afternoon from my right hon. and learned Friend, would it not be fair and in the public interest to instruct the Independent Broadcasting Authority to take off its suppressing devices and let the public see for themselves what all the fuss is about?

The IBA came to its decision on the basis of the legal advice that it obtained. It has a duty to comply with the law. However, its decision is entirely its affair.

Will the Home Secretary say whether the reports in today's edition of The Times, which tell us that the Government have decided not to prosecute Miss Cathy Massiter because the matters that she revealed were too secret to come before a court, are true? Is that an indication that if an individual wants to leak, he or she should leak very secret things?

The decision is for the Director of Public Prosecutions under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, and not for the Government. No decision has yet been made.

I recognise that the Leader of the House is responsible for the management of the Government's business, but will the Home Secretary acknowledge, bearing in mind his admission in answering the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that Lord Bridge's report would be produced very soon, the inappropriateness of bringing forward the telephone tapping Bill next Wednesday?

No, I cannot make any such acknowledgement. Parliamentary business is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.

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 tell the teachers that, however deeply they may or may not feel, a strike would be damaging not only to our children's education and to the respect in which teachers are held in the classroom, but to the status of teachers in society, and for that very reason their eventual remuneration?

As I have said previously, we deplore the pursuit of a pay claim at the expense of the education of children. However strongly some teachers may feel, we do not think that anything can justify that action.

Is it not a fact that by driving the teachers to this desperate measure in the same way as they did with the miners, the Government — by not paying enough money towards teachers' salaries — are the root cause of any curbing of children's education? The teachers want to continue teaching and to do their best. It is the Government's refusal to give teachers decent wages and conditions that is harming our children. Responsibility lies with the Government and not the teachers.

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. Teachers' pay has kept pace with inflation since 1979.

During my right hon. Friend's recent visit to the United States, did she note the enormous contribution to economic growth, new jobs, new technology and new revenues that has been generated by new and smaller businesses? Despite the valiant efforts of her Administration in Britain, does she not feel that planning and employment legislation still act to stifle new and smaller businesses? Will she please light a rocket to explode these shackles?

I agree with my hon. Friend that new jobs will come from new businesses and small businesses. That is where the vast majority of the 7 million new jobs in the United States over the past two years have come from. We are considering regulations with a view to diminishing their effect or repealing those which might prevent new businesses from starting up.

Notwithstanding the action that the Prime Minister is taking following the Channel 4 programme, may I ask her not to close her mind to the setting up of a permanent committee of Privy Councillors to oversee the security services and to deal with complaints about possible abuses from members of the public?

No, Sir. That proposal has been put forward many times before and I do not think it a very useful one. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since April 1980 the processes of interception have been subject to independent monitoring by senior members of the judiciary — first, Lord Diplock and, secondly, Lord Bridge of Harwich. They have been able to assure me in every one of their annual reports that they have satisfied themselves that warrants for interception have been applied for and issued in accordance with the procedures and criteria described in the White Paper on interception of communications, which was presented to the House in April 1980.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree, now that the majority of miners are working, with 61 coal faces, £120 million worth of equipment, £700 million of miners' pay and many jobs unnecessarily but permanently lost, that it can all be put down to one man and that the biggest enemy of the coal industry and coal miners is Arthur Scargill?

I agree that the strike has been highly damaging to the coal industry and to those whose future rests in that industry. It has lost customers and confidence, and the best way forward is for miners who are still on strike to take matters into their own hands and return to rebuild the industry which their leadership has shattered.

Has the Prime Minister seen today's report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which says that any fool can close a long-stay hospital, but that it takes time and trouble to do it properly? Does she agree that the cruellest fool of all is the one who does that sort of thing while saying that the National Health Service is safe in her hands?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a well-known procedure for the closure of hospitals. He will also be aware that the Labour party when in government closed more hospitals than we have closed, and that sometimes they are closed so that there may be better provision in newer hospitals. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that under this Government the increase in expenditure on the NHS has reached 20 per cent. in real terms, after inflation has been taken into account.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relative strength of the pound against the European currencies, especially as we are an oil producer, presents an ideal opportunity, in relation to the pound against the dollar, for us to be more competitive in our exports and therefore to do our GDP a power of good?

One of the advantages of the strength of the dollar is that exporters have more chance to get more exports into the United States. Those who have never tackled that market before have a good opportunity to start to establish a position there, and then to keep it should the relative exchange values change.

Has the Prime Minister noted the concern expressed today by her friends on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee at the Government's policy, as they put it, of making the gas, electricity, water and other industries pay off debt and finance all future investment from current charges? How can she defend a policy that guarantees large and unnecessary increases in water, gas and electricity bills, both for ordinary families and for industries that are striving to compete?

After last year's drought we thought it right to make increased investment in the water industry. In fact, a 9 per cent. increase in investment is being made in that industry; and if we have increased investment, it must be paid for. The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve to complain about electricity prices, bearing in mind that under the Labour Government they went up 2 per cent. every six weeks, whereas under this Government they have gone up by only 2 per cent. in two years.

That is all very well, but again the right hon. Lady does not answer the question. Is she not aware that the policy she is operating means either substantial price increases so as to get investment, or lower price increases, with a consequent decline and decay in investment, with all the results of that on national economic prospects? Which does she want — higher prices so that we have some investment, or more stable prices so that we get economic decline?

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there can be increased investment without someone paying for it? If so, he is being absolutely ridiculous.

The right hon. Lady used the instance of water in the Thames Valley. She will have to explain her theories to the chairman of that authority, appointed by her, who said that he could get higher investment and efficiency with a 3 per cent. increase. She forced a 9 per cent. increase on him. Is that what she means by efficiency?

We have to look at the supply of water all over the country as a whole. Does he not?

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the report in The Guardian that the Audit Commission has discovered that social services for the elderly could be improved by 20 per cent. without any increase in resources? Have not local authorities a duty to seek such savings?

Yes, I noted the report of the Audit Commission. It is very good evidence to support the view that we have been taking for some time that instead of concentrating on increasing expenditure we should be concentrating on getting more services for the present expenditure. That is what the Audit Commission says can be done in the social services departments.

On the question of water costs, is the Prime Minister aware that the Welsh water authority has said that the cost of water would come down in real terms in the coming year but that, as a result of her Government's action, the cost will increase by a third of 30 per cent. over the next three years? Will she now admit that the costs that people are facing are a direct result of this Government's policy?

We took a decision to increase, over the country as a whole, investment in water, reservoirs, pipes and everything else. I should have thought that that was in line with what I have often been urged to do—put extra resources into infrastructure. It was also necessary because of the drought. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, on average, water rates are about 20p a day. That is about the cost of a daily newspaper.

asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to make an official visit to York.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the York electors will be saddened that the Prime Minister has not yet found time, with her very busy diary, to visit the medieval city of York? Nevertheless, when she does have that opportunity, I am sure that she will deplore the loss of rail revenue through the coal dispute and say that, as the Government have put a greater amount of money into rail investment in the last five years in real terms than any previous Government, the quickest way to continue a successful transport policy is to ensure that coal freight is returned to the railways from the roads.

I did indeed visit the excellent railway museum when I went to York, and very good I found it. I agree with my hon. Friend that the coal strike has damaged jobs in industries far beyond the coal industry itself. It has very much damaged the railwaymen's prospects of getting the freight they need and I fear that that will result in the loss of jobs by railwaymen because of the loss of coal freight.

Does the Prime Minister realise that York played a very important part in the early history of the Post Office and that when a postman got tipped in York in the early days he did not have to pay income tax on it? How on earth does the Prime Minister now justify the decision to charge postmen income tax whether or not they receive tips? Does the Prime Minister tip her postman and, if she does, should the tip be taxed? If she does not, should tips be taxed?

The question of how and by how much tips are taxed is a matter for the Inland Revenue. It comes up from time to time in connection with any occupation in which tips are received, and the practice has not changed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time today to look at some of her previous statements on the relationship of the pound to the dollar? For instance, does she recall saying on 6 April 1976 of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when he rose to open his Budget

"last year the value of the pound was $2·37. When he rose to open it this year the value was down to $1·87 … That is the best barometer of the world's confidence in the" — [Official Report, 6 April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 284.]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has said enough.

I think that I answered that question yesterday, and since then the pound has improved against the dollar.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes by teachers every year are terribly damaging to children, especially those who do not have homes to go to during the day while the teachers are on strike, those preparing for examinations and all other children? Has not the time come for teachers to talk to employers to try to obtain an agreement that will last for two or three years so that schools are strike-free during that time?

An agreement that would last for two or three years would be very welcome. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about strike action. However strongly some teachers may feel, no strike action that damages children — especially those coming up to examination time — is justified. As my hon. Friend knows, teachers were offered arbitration but chose not to accept it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is a great deal of pressure during Question Time. Today, the Home Secretary referred to the inquiry being carried out by Lord Bridge at the request of the Prime Minister. My point of order is simple and clear—[Interruption.] We know that Members on the Conservative Benches are not concerned with civil liberties. I am directing my point of order to you, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not prolong Question Time. That is a bad practice, which I thought we had ended.

I consider that there should have been—

Order. With great respect, it is not a matter of what the hon. Gentleman considers. He must put a point of order to me to answer.

Was it not an abuse of the House that a matter of such importance should have been dealt with during Question Time, with no statements being made by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to prolong Question Time.

rose—

Order. I shall deal with one point at a time. I am not responsible for the questions that hon. Members table on the Order Paper for answer. There was a long answer to question No. 4, and we were able to reach question No. 14, which was broadly similar. I think that that was entirely due to the foresight and perspicacity of hon. Members concerned.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an item raised during Question Time to be deemed by a Front Bench Opposition spokesman to be a statement and treated as such to prolong the questioning of the Treasury Front Bench?

As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was given a copy—[Interruption.] He said so. He was given a copy of the answer. I think that he may have been under the misapprehension that it was actually a statement. That is what he said. That is probably how the misunderstanding arose.

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that, in your role of custodian of the proceedings of the House and the rights of Members of Parliament, an important matter is involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), in question No. 4, asked the Home Secretary

"how many official complaints about police behaviour have been received during the miners' strike; and how many of these concern accusations of assault."

May I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that I have no knowledge of any planted question or anything of that kind. I called the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) because he happens to be Vice Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That is a very good reason. I had not anticipated that such a long answer would be given. I am not responsible for answers, but there used to be a system whereby, if we had questions of such complexity, they were answered at the end of Question Time. That would be a good way out for the future.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is recognised in most parts of the House, that you are very zealous in protecting the rights of Back-Bench Members, particularly at Question Time. How was it that a statement relating to a question still unasked, but described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufmann) as a statement, could be exchanged between members of the two Front Benches but not circulated to any other party or any other Member of the House? That seems to be an abuse of procedure.

Further to that point of order. I ought to correct what has been said. I think the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will recall that he was good enough to thank me for sending him a copy, not of any answer to a question, but of a letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to the Leader of the Opposition. He was not sent anything that related to what I answered.

rose—

I think it would be for the benefit of the whole House that we should not prolong this and that the matter should now be finally cleared up.

Further to the point of order raised by the Home Secretary, Mr. Speaker, I made it clear at the time, and I make clear now in response to the Home Secretary, that he sent me a copy of a letter which the Prime Minister had sent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. At the same time, it has to be said—you will appreciate what I mean, Mr. Speaker—that it came as absolutely no surprise that the Home Secretary then used the basis of that letter as an answer to a supplementary question. Furthermore, as I said in my earlier point of order, no one was alleging in any way that you, Mr. Speaker, were a party to the planting of the supplementary question. Nevertheless, it was obvious to everyone in the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was ready for the supplementary question. It may be that the position of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East made him confident that he would be called by you to ask a supplementary.

All that is as may be. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been in government, knows that this is as old as the hills.

Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. In the earlier exchanges, you said that you interpreted the Home Secretary's response as an answer and not as a statement. Of course, we all respect that interpretation and understand it. Although it was in the form of an answer, it was a carefully prepared major statement of policy. Because that major statement was put in a form which you accepted in good faith as an answer, I suggest that the Home Secretary misled you and the House of Commons.

Order. I am in no way concerned with answers, nor is it my role to be interested in them, even though I may be.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question that was asked by—

Order. I say to the hon. Member that if he is now going to attempt to expand on Question Time when he was, in fact, called to ask a question, I shall look upon it very badly indeed.

Two days ago, during Defence questions, I asked a question. Before the Minister could reply, you rose to your feet, Mr. Speaker, to point out that my question was not in order. The precedent is set for a judgment by you as to whether a parliamentary question is in order. I direct you to question No. 4 today, which was about police behaviour. The question was accepted by the Table Office and answered by the Minister. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) asked a supplementary question. I simply ask you to make a judgment and to rule whether the question asked by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East was in order in so far as it did not relate to police behaviour. [Interruption.] It was about surveillance. If the question was not in order, is it correct to say, in so far as the Minister made a statement in response to that question, that the Minister's reply was equally not in order? If you rule, following my point of order, Mr. Speaker that both the question and the answer were not in order, the House could require the Home Secretary to make a new statement on the question, thereby enabling many of my hon. Friends to raise questions.

I interpreted the question of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East as being in order; otherwise I would have ruled him out of order. The House knows that I listen very carefully to questions. I am not responsible for what the Home Secretary says in his answers. I am sensitive to the moods of the House, and that is why—I hope the House understands this — we moved on fairly rapidly to arrive at the question again and to have a further exchange on it. In my view that was the right way in which to proceed.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of points. There is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about abusing Question Time. I well understand your predicament, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary was able to answer a question on a matter with which he wanted to deal. There is a long standing convention that a Minister answering a question is not expected to answer another question that is lower down on the Order Paper. That is the second abuse this afternoon by the Minister.

The hon. Member would make a very good Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that question 4 was my question. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall ask for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman must raise an entirely different point of order or I will not hear it.

I am asking you whether in future—not today — you will make it clear to Ministers that when a matter is likely to be the subject of much controversy and a statement is clearly required, they should try to arrange that? What we had today was a serious abuse of Question Time.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to put me in a position of finding out what answers will be given.