asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with accommodation for the magistrates' court in Stockport.

Responsibility for magistrates' courts accommodation rests initially with the magistrates' courts committee and the providing authority, Stockport metropolitan district council, which was given approval in 1978 to resume forward planning on a scheme to provide a replacement courthouse.

Will not the Minister agree that, in the end, it is for his Department to give approval for a replacement courthouse? Does not he agree that the present courthouse in Stockport is one of the most squalid in the land?

I agree that the present courthouse in Stockport needs replacing. It is high on the list of projects. It has, unfortunately, not been possible to fix a date for commencement of work, but the fact that approval has been given to resume forward planning indicates that the Home Office shares the view expresed by the hon. Gentleman about the need for its replacement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the level of recruitment into the police force.

At 31 March 1980, the strength of the police service in England and Wales was 114,543, an increase of 4,234 during 1979 plus 1,234 so far this year. Many forces are close to establishment and this is a cause for satisfaction, but there are still substantial deficiencies in some areas, especially London.

Bearing in mind the comments made at the conference in Torquay yesterday, does my right hon. Friend think that hostile comment in the media is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on police recruitment? What does my right hon. Friend think of Mr. William Deedes' suggestion that a Select Committee should be urgently called to reexamine the Police Act and changes in police duties?

Adverse comment is clearly not having an adverse effect on recruitment. The police should be ready at all times to listen to, and to respond to, constructive criticism. At the same time, I do not think that there is any reason for the police to be subjected, as they sometimes are, to unfair criticism.

I noted what Mr. William Deedes said. I would get into great trouble in certain quarters if, having established a Select Committee on Home Affairs in this House, I was to start saying that what it was doing could somehow be done by someone else.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the strain that recent recruiting is placing upon training facilities, especially in the Metropolitan Police area? Hendon college, which I visited recently, is vastly overstretched. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that more resources are needed? Is he aware that many London Members feel that the present level of training should be maintained, and possibly increased, particularly in areas such as community relations?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support which I very much welcome. I agree with him. I wish to expand training, particularly for the Metropolitan Police. I am very grateful to some other forces in the country which have spare training capacity and have been able to share it. That is the best way to proceed.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance concerning the absence of training facilities in the Metropolitan area, which is very worrying to London Members? Will he give the House an assurance that, when trained policemen are available, they will be allocated to outer London in the same ratio as to inner London, since there is a danger of their being allocated to the high risk areas which are generally regarded as being in inner London?

This must be a matter under the control of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner who will, no doubt, take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Did the Home Secretary find the forecast of the chief constable of Sussex at this conference a little worrying, since it seems that in years to come recruitment will be not of policemen but of soldiers? Is not that a decision which ought to be taken by democratically-elected people rather than by chief constables?

Such decisions will be taken by democratically-elected people. I think that all the chief constables accept that our policing in this country, whether in respect of terrorist incidents or disorder, has been seen over recent years to be based on our traditional community policing methods. As long as I have any responsibility in the matter it will remain that way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider further measures to reverse the continuing rise in the level of juvenile crime and vandalism.

By strengthening the police and improving the sanctions available to the courts we are already seeking more effective ways of preventing and deterring juvenile crime. We are also considering what legislative changes are necessary further to strengthen the powers of the courts in dealing with juveniles. But any reduction in juvenile offending must greatly depend on the continuing efforts of parents, teachers, and others concerned with children in the community.

I am grateful for that answer. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency and in many urban areas the level of vandalism is approaching intolerable proportions? It seems that in many cases parents are reluctant to assume responsibility for the behaviour of their children. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider giving the courts extra powers to impose fines on the parents of children who misbehave?

I welcome the opportunity to describe the extensive powers that the courts already have. Under the 1933 Act the court must, when awarding fines, compensation or costs against a child, make the parents or guardians pay unless the parent or guardian cannot be found or the court is satisfied that he or she has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person. In the case of older offenders between 14 and 17. the court has the discretion to exercise that power. I hope that the full extent of those powers will be appreciated. They have an important part to play in dealing with the problem that my hon. Friend identified.

Has the Minister studied the various reports of Dr. Belson about the connection between violence on television and juvenile crime and vandalism? Will the Home Office start to take this connection seriously and study what should be done about it?

The relationship between violence on television and what happens in the world at large is important, but I am not entirely clear what consequences for action the hon. Gentleman suggests should flow from that.

In view of the level of juvenile vandalism involving air weapons, will my hon. and learned Friend look into the possibility of pioneering a national scheme of instruction whereby young persons who want to use weapons of that sort can be taught to do so safely, legally and properly?

I am glad to hear that idea. I should like to consider it. Perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend to see whether he has a further concept of how it might be worked out.

What has happened since the general election? Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall all the promises that a Conservative victory would bring down the crime rate in this respect, since when they have gone up and up? What will the Government do about that?

I do not accept that the figures bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has placed upon them. I concentrated on the question of the powers of the courts, because that is a practical step that can be and has been taken. The Government have already introduced 15 new attendance centres. They have introduced changed regimes in two detention centres. We are at the advanced stage of preparing proposals to put to the country relating to young offenders more generally. If we add to that the action that has been taken over the police it can be seen that we have been following a policy of implementing what we promised during the general election.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached a decision about reducing the age at which people can stand for election to this House.

No, Sir. As soon as we have, we shall inform the House.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it is anomalous that people can vote at 18 but cannot stand for election to this House until they are 21? Does he realise that Mr. Speaker's Conference in the 1970–74 parliament recommended that the age at which people could stand for election should be reduced to 18? Is it not time that something was done about that?

There is considerable force in what my hon. Friend said. Whether the political parties would wish to choose candidates aged between 18 and 21 is another matter; whether the electorate would wish to elect them is yet another. It is a little difficult to understand whether there should be a legal barrier to them however.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that there is considerable difficulty, at the age of 24, in persuading a selection committee that one has reached a suitable age for election? Is he further aware that there is not the pressure from the people of this country that Members of Parliament should be of a younger age than those who always represent certain constituencies?

I have not found the pressure overwhelming, but the question whether there should be a legal barrier deserves serious consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will advise chief constables to extend training in riot control to all officers, and to increase Special Patrol Group manpower and supplies of equipment for the control of riots and terrorist attacks.

I would prefer to await the outcome of the review of arrangements for handling spontaneous disorder which I announced on 28 April.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government Benches very much support the Special Patrol Group? Does he agree that its work is vital for the maintenance of law and order? Does he further consider that it is significant that the vast majority of those bodies or individuals who seek to criticise the SPG also seek to undermine the institutions of our country, and that many of them, including the Anti-Nazi League, have been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party.

The only point I have ever made is that I believe that the SPG to be a most important mobile reserve of police which has done a considerable job in the Metropolitan area. I strongly support its continuance. Some changes have been made recently by the Commissioner. I think that they are right. The basic work of the SPG is of enormous importance.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is misleading to put a question in this bracket, so as to equate the policing requirement for dealing with civil disturbances arising from racist Fascist activity with that for dealing with terrorism and similar problems? Does he agree, that while the inquest on Blair Peach did not pinpoint any one officer as being guilty, it gave rise to questions about behaviour and about weaponry kept in police lockers? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the use of the Special Patrol Group on occasions of civil disorder of that kind under continuous review? Does he agree that there is a certain contradiction in what he said earlier——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has taken long enough for two supplementary questions.

I think that it would be wrong to make comments which could be used later in judicial proceedings which may yet well arise as a result of that incident. I would not wish to do so. However, I believe that the verdict of the inquest is one on which everyone concerned should sensibly stand and I would not think it right to reopen the matter in any way. Of course, there is need in all these matters for community policing on the one hand, which is very important, and on the other hand there is the need to deal with spontaneous disorder, which requires a different form of policing at the time, which is something that we all have to accept.

Will the Secretary of State clarify what he meant when he referred to the possibility of future legal actions? Would he agree that this matter of recruitment to and training of the Special Patrol Group and any similar bodies is far too important to be treated in anything other than a very impartial and calm manner? Has the right hon. Gentleman any comments to make now, or can he tell the House when he will have comments to make, on the riders attached to the inquest verdict in the Blair Peach case—a rather surprising verdict in the view of many—because those riders made comments upon the SPG? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have any statement to make to the House about consequential action in the light of those riders?

I merely referred to what I have read in the press about talk of judicial proceedings on both sides.

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that these matters were considered very calmly, because several months ago the Commissioner announced some changes in the organisation of the SPG which actually met completely the riders put by the jury at the inquest.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a police officer, whether he be a member of the SPG or anything else, is entitled to just the same presumption of innocence as any other citizen, and that the morale of the police generally has been badly affected by the trial in the headlines and the aspersions on the SPG without evidence?

I am bound to agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that the right answer is to abide by what was said at the inquest, to realise that we have already taken the action that was necessary and to let the matter be closed there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the functioning of the Police Complaints Board.

I have received a few representations from Members of Parliament and others commenting on the functioning of the Police Complaints Board. I shall take these into account in considering the board's triennial review report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that my question is not an implied criticism of the police in this matter? Is not the fact that police investigate police an inherent weakness in the scheme? The only evidence which the Police Complaints Board considers is submitted from the police themselves. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by a number of hon. Members that it is not possible to get a straight answer to the question of how many complaints are submitted to the board and how many are sustained?

These are matters which properly arise when we consider the board's triennial review. I think that we must all remember, that after exhaustive discussions, the Labour Government decided to introduce the Police Complaints Act, on the basis that it was introduced. They went into all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and decided that in all the circumstances this was the best way of proceeding. Whether it is the best way and whether we should change it we have every right to decide after the three-year report. But it was this House, under the Labour Government, which introduced the Act as it stands.

At the time of the triennial review, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a different system for submitting complaints? Will he accept that there is a case to be made for the possibility of complaints being made direct to the Police Complaints Board and not necessarily to the constabulary of which complaint is being made? That would resolve some of the doubts and anxieties which naturally occur from time to time and are further stimulated from time to time by comment, particularly in the media.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that we would find in the procedure very considerable problems as far as police investigations are concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Voluntary Services Unit of his Department

The Voluntary Services Unit was set up in 1973 for the purpose of encouraging voluntary effort. It has three main functions: to make grants to certain voluntary organisations; to co-ordinate and develop Government policy towards the voluntary sector as a whole; and to take initiatives to encourage voluntary effort in the community. I believe that, since its inception, the VSU has played a significant role in achieving its objectives.

At a time when we are being told that a painful search for economy is being made in every area, has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to the fact that the unit has committed itself to giving £42,000 of taxpayers' money to a body called " SCARP ", whose national newspaper, which I have here, records on the front page that 1980 should be the year of "Rock against Thatcher", explains that Tory policies are no good for anyone, and invites applications for lapel badges with the slogan " Rinse Out Blue Scum ". Does the Home Secretary feel that this is an appropriate use of public money? Will he be willing to discuss with the Charity Commission how many bodies supported by the VSU enjoy charitable status——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is also taking up enough time for two supplementary questions. That is two that we have lost altogether.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue of the newspaper to which he referred is quite deplorable. The grant is currently under active review. The matter has, I understand, been drawn to the attention of the Charity Commission which has the responsibility for deciding what is charitable, and not the Home Secretary.

Will the hon. Gentleman resist attacks in general on the VSU in view of the very valuable work that it has done and is doing towards the development of voluntary services? Will he give an assurance that the funds given to the unit are, in real terms, just as great as when the present Government took office, and if possible even greater?

I said in my reply that we attach importance to the role of the VSU. I believe that I am right in saying that we have maintained the level of funding in real terms.

It may or may not be desirable to attack the VSU in general, but can my hon. Friend at least assure the House that he is looking at all those organisations which receive grants from the unit because in a very large number of cases they are, to a greater or lesser degree, subversive, and that causes grave disquet among those who know about it?

Actual complaints about objectionable political activity have been received in respect of only two projects financed by the VSU. Funding for one of these, the Tyne and Wear resource centre, has now ceased. The other matter, as I have said, is under review.

One of the greatest things about our democracy is that central and local government departments very often fund voluntary organisations which are critical of the body funding them. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to attack and criticise any voluntary group that criticised an organisation or a State body that funded it we would be destroying democracy?

Clearly, we do not intend to control every detail of every activity of organisations funded by the VSU, but, as I have said, I believe that what occurred in the case of the newspaper referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was quite unacceptable.

My hon Friend says that the matter is under review. When will the review be completed? Does not he agree that, while the review is going on, no further money should be given to this organisation?

The matter will be concluded very rapidly indeed.

Is the Minister seriously saying that any organisation which publishes in its newspaper the views of perhaps even another organisation—which I believe is what happened in this case—will have its grant reviewed and possibly withdrawn? Is he saying that he is introducing a form of State censorship of organisations like SCARP?

I am not saying that I am introducing a form of State censorship, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should have a look at this newspaper and ask himself whether he thinks that the material was justified.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the evidence supplied to him, he will investigate the security of the police computer network.

No information has come to light to bear out speculation in a newspaper report that safeguards in the system have been evaded.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that in recent years equipment has become available at the cost of a few hundred pounds which could be used to decode the coding system? If that is so, would it not be possible for criminal information to be extracted from the central bank or even for false information to be put into it?

I appreciate the expertise of the hon. Gentleman in this context and I am grateful to him for raising the matter. It is important that we should always be on the lookout for any security evasions of this kind. We are making certain procedural changes, which I believe is right but I think that it would be counter-productive to disclose them to the House.

Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a general problem here and not just a particular one? Would it not now be a good idea if we were to discuss the Lindop committee report? It is not a matter of reaching decisions on it but the House, at times, should discuss the general issue before Governments proceed with legislation.

I can only say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It would be helpful. However, it is not in his hands, or mine, to decide when that should be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the treatment of alcoholic offenders.

Treatment facilities for alcoholic offenders not in custody are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. For those received in prison suffering from alcoholism, prison medical officers supervise treatment. In many prisons psychiatrically qualified medical officers and visiting consultant psychiatrists are available to offer psychotherapy if this is indicated. A few prisons have specialist units. Most others have an Alcoholics Anonymous group or a group offering counselling about drink-related problems.

My hon. and learned Friend knows that many prisoners are alcoholics and should not be in prison at all. It is now nine years since we had a Home Office report recommending the setting up of detoxification centres round the country. I know that there have been experiments in Leeds and Manchester. When will my hon. and learned Friend come forward to the House with recommendations? Is not the period of assessment of those two centres nearing completion? We must have an answer soon as to what will happen to these people.

As far as those two centres are concerned, the result of the assessments will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to consider. I understand that the outcome of the assessments is likely to be available next year.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, as his hon. Friend said, it is inappropriate to put drunken offenders in prison? Does he agree that the £30,000 that the Home Secretary has given to the wet shelters, though welcome, is too small for the needs that are evident, particularly as a large proportion of the deaths in police custody occur as a result of alcoholic poisoning? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now answer his hon. Friend and say when the proposals and the recommendations of the 1971 report will be implemented by his Department?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that imprisonment is an inappropriate penalty for drunkenness. Nobody doubts that. The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are, on the whole, fine defaulters. The measure referred to by the hon. Gentleman relating to wet shelters is designed to prevent alcoholics from going through the criminal justice system at all. The £30,000 is meant to start the project off. I hope that other money will be available. Consultations about that are taking place. This is only the beginning.

Is my hon. and learned Friend able to say what the average sentence is for an alcoholic offender and what is the recidivism rate among such people?

It is impossible to give an average sentence for alcoholic offenders because the term " alcoholism " is not a specific one. There is a large number of people in prison who are there for ordinary offences but who also have alcoholic problems. But the specific problem of people going to prison because the have not paid fines imposed for drunkenness is one which we are approaching in the way that I have described.

If the Minister accepts that it is absolutely pointless to put alcoholics in our overcrowded old prisons, what proposals does he have to increase the facilities for treating alcoholics properly in places such as Grendon Underwood?

I mentioned the existence of facilities in my opening answer. In addition to Grendon there are Wormwood Scrubs, Holloway and Feltham borstal which provide facilities of this kind. We are now examining them to ascertain the extent to which they can be extended.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to have a wet shelter for No. 10 Downing Street?

That does not arise out of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for he Home Department how many fall-out shelters are constructed under, in or adjoining public buildings; and how many new such shelters are under construction.

No central records are kept because it has not been general Government policy to provide fall-out shelters in public buildings.

May I congratulate the Minister on the added responsibilities that he has been given in this direction? That adequately illustrates the priorities of the Government. They have made this job more important after downgrading the job of the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled.

Is the Minister aware that there is great anger on Merseyside that public money is being spent on fall-out shelters under such buildings as police stations, when there is no public money available for peace-time activities such as industrial investment? Does not the Minister accept that extra expenditure on these fall-out shelters is kidding the public into believing that there is a defence against nuclear weapons when there is not?

Since I have said that it is not general Government policy to provide fall-out shelters in public buildings I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman, kind as his welcome to me was, devised his supplementary question before he had heard the main answer.

While accepting that Her Majesty's Government are quite right to put great emphasis on deterring rather than surviving a war, would my hon. and learned Friend, none the less, take steps to identify all existing buildings which may have basements and underground garages suitable as fall-out shelters?

Local authorities have been asked to carry out a survey of existing buildings to identify those capable of providing shelter. That survey is proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders he has signed in respect of foreign nationals under 17 years of age.

Information about the number of deportation orders signed in respect of persons under 17 years of age is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate expense. Such cases are, however, very unusual.

In view of the ease with which foreign students can obtain entry permits to pursue educational courses in this country—which we welcome—will not the Minister reconsider the Government's current policy of deporting young people in full time education for the technical misdemeanours of their parents, as seems to be the case with my Wisbech constituent?

Our belief is that where there is a strong case for deporting the parents—as there is in this case—it really does not make sense to allow an integral member of the family to stay behind. No decision has yet been made to deport Miss Yau, to whom I think the hon. Gentleman was referring. Her parents and her brother are to be deported for overstaying and Miss Yau is being given an opportunity to leave voluntarily with them. Only if she does not do so will deportation be considered.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer that he has just given provides cause for concern and anxiety? I believe—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this view—that the sins of the father should never be visited upon the children. Could not the hon. Gentleman's answer be interpreted in the opposite way?

We are speaking of a 15-year-old girl and there is absolutely nothing unreasonable in believing that the family should remain together.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police have been victims of violence in each of the last three years; and how many so far during the current year.

The only figures readily available are those for officers assaulted on duty given in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The figures for 1977–79 were 4,030, 3,955 and 4,185 respectively. The equivalent figure for 1980 up to 21 April was 997.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are disturbingly high? Is he convinced that the courts have sufficient penalties at their disposal for those who assault police officers on duty? Is new protective equipment part of the answer and what new action will the Home Office take in this context?

These are certainly worrying figures. They represent the high cost to police officers—and often the high cost in money terms—of coping with disorders and violence with our traditional community police methods. Nevertheless, I believe that these methods are absolutely right and we must persist with them. I hope that we can persuade—in our review of public order and in what action this House takes afterwards—those who wish to conduct demonstrations that it is in their interest and the interests of everybody, to do so without violence. That is something on which this House should give a strong lead.

Will the Secretary of State join with the whole House in sending good wishes to Stephen Hickling, the 19-year old policeman whose hand was blown off at Catford police station a few weeks ago? Does he agree that when policemen are injured in that way it should be possible for the Metropolitan Police to find ways of continuing to employ them.

I gladly respond to what the hon. Gentleman has so generously said. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in that. It is important to point out also that the response to that incident showed the high esteem in which the police are held in that area and throughout the country. There was a magnificent response in money and in many other ways to the plight of this unfortunate police officer. The Commissioner has made it clear that he hopes that it will be possible—as we all hope that it will be—for this police officer to continue in some employment. That must be a matter for the future. The response at the time showed significant support for the police.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if 4,000 or more Metropolitan Police officers are injured by violence every year inevitably they will insist upon more and more protective uniforms and devices? Does he accept that that would be most unfortunate since it would separate the police from the public? Would it not be much better to decry in every way assaults on the police, because otherwise we are bound to go in the direction of paramilitary policing?

I have already made it clear that it would be a retrograde step for the country if we went down the road of paramilitary policing. After all, we have a system of community policing which is the envy of the world. We should keep it that way. We should be sad if we had to depart from it. However, the House must give a lead to all people who take part in marches and demonstration and tell them that violence can never be justified on such occasions.

In view of all the wonderful things that have been said about our police force, will the Home Secretary give a guarantee that in their next pay award they will be awarded not less than 22 per cent.—the current rate of inflation?

Police pay negotiations are conducted under the Edmund-Davies formula. They will be conducted under that formula in future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to vote in the United Kingdom elections.

I understand that the labour force survey taken in 1979 suggests that there may be close to half a million citizens of the Irish Republic aged 18 and over resident in the United Kingdom. Those whose names appear in an electoral register would be entitled to vote at all elections in Great Britain and at parliamentary and European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland.

I am grateful for that reply. In the light of those figures can my hon. and learned Friend give the House three convincing reasons—or even one or two—why his Department appears to be so reluctant to terminate this totally unreciprocated anomaly?

The anomaly to which my hon. Friend refers must be considered in the light of the history of relations between the two countries and of the efforts that the two Governments are making to improve co-operation on security matters affecting Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), the Government do not at present have proposals to change the position.

If the estimates are based in whole or in part upon the forms completed by electors for registration, is it possible for the Government to publish in the Official Report or elsewhere estimates for the respective constituencies in Great Britain?

The estimates are not derived from that source but from the labour force survey.

Approximately how many British citizens whose domicile is in the Irish Republic are not entitled to vote for the Dail Eireann? Is there any truth in the reports that the present Dublin Government intend to accord reciprocity?

I do not have the figures, but I shall see whether I can obtain them for my hon. Friend. We do not have the details of proposals made by the Prime Minister of the Republic, but obviously we shall consider any proposals that are made.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Irish citizens in this country, many of whom have lived here for many years—including citizens from the North and the South and two Members of Parliament—play a most important part in the life of the country, in spite of murmurs from the Government side of the House?

There is no doubt that Irish citizens play an important part in the country, but whether they should have the right to vote is another question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Eastern Europe, in the light of her proposals to initiate a massive propaganda campaign, using powerful transmitters, to beam television programmes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Our policy is to use the resources at our disposal, consistent with our international obligations, to ensure that Britain's voice is heard by the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as by the rest of the world.

As a lawyer, was it prudent for the Prime Minister to float an idea that breaches international agreements? As a scientist would not it have been wise if she had checked her technical facts? Is this yet another case—to borrow the delicate phrase used yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—of " suck it and see? "

I hardly think so, bearing in mind that I have been interested in this for some time. As a politician, I would do what I believe that the hon. Gentleman would do, bearing in mind the extent to which he practices freedom of speech. I would pursue the ideological struggle and try to put across the Western free world case to Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe as hard as I possibly can.

Is not there a danger of lumping together the situations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Does my right hon. Frend agree that there is ample evidence that the peoples enslaved by the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe are almost literally dying to make contact with the West? Will the Prime Minister do her utmost to increase our broadcasts to the people of the enslaved Eastern European countries in particular so that they know at least that we in the West occasionally think about then-plight?

I do not know whether there is much difference between some of the enslaved peoples of Eastern Europe and the USSR. I make a point of seeing all the dissidents who come out so that I can hear precisely their experiences.

All of them?

I see all the dissidents who ask to see me. Many of them do. We are particularly anxious that broadcasts to the Soviet Union and the East European States should have top priority in the external services.

Will the free world case include a detailed explanation about the deployment of vast numbers of nuclear missiles in Western Europe and, in particular, an explanation of why the majority are in the United Kingdom?

The fact is that the Soviet Union has the latest nuclear missiles—the SS 20—and it is facing Europe. We must have an effective deterrent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 June.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be giving a reception for the England football team before leaving for a visit to Cheshire.

When preparing for her arduous round of duties, did the Prime Minister have time over breakfast this morning to discuss the newspaper allegation that one of the firms paying starvation wages in South Africa is Burmah Oil? Does she realise that she has a double personal obligation to the House to ensure that her Ministers insist on the publication of the list of 33 firms involved in this affair? Will she explain why, today of all days, we are to be told that the work of the labour attaché in Pretoria, who has been our personal monitor in these matters, is to be phased out?

I shall take the latter question first. The report about the labour attaché in Pretoria is not correct. The present attaché is retiring. He will be 60 years old this year. He is being replaced, and the person replacing him will take over precisely the same functions that are performed by the present labour attaché.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other question—he usually asks two—all facts are published in the reports of the companies, and under the voluntary code all reports are available in the Library of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have received the report of the European Commission of Human Rights relating to the closed shop and especially to the case of Young James and Webster? Will she also say whether the Government intend to fight that case under article 11(1) before the European Court, or whether they intend to accept the recommendations of the report?

The Government have received the report of the commission. We do not believe that it is critical of the new provisions in the Employment Bill, which are very different from the law as it was when those people lost their jobs by virtue of the closed shop. As my hon. Friend will know, the report of the commission goes to the European Court. I understand that a court has been established, but the date for the hearing has not yet been announced. It is right that the Government should attend the court and put their views on the closed shop, which are very different from the views of the previous Labour Administration.

Before the Prime Minister's reception this evening, will she find time to telephone the NEB and ask it to stop playing football with the future of Ferranti? Is she aware that the proposal to dispose of the NEB's interest in Ferranti in one go has been rejected by the united work force, and condemned even by management as being against the best interests of the company? Will she explain why, for the sake of a fast buck, she is taking such a gamble with the future of high technology industry in Britain, which we need if we are to survive as a manufacturing nation?

The NEB helped Ferranti when it was in need. Ferranti no longer needs help through the NEB. It is for that board to dispose of the shares in the best way possible.

asked the Prime Miniser if she will list her official engagements for 5 June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.

In view of the increasing interest in reform of the House of Lords and our system of government, will my right hon. Friend discuss today with the Lord Chancellor the possibility of publishing a Green Paper in the autumn, which would give the House an opportunity to decide how best we might improve our vitally important system of dual-chamber government?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters. There are many conflicting views on whether the House of Lords should be reformed, and, if so, precisely how that could be achieved. Some hon. Members who have been in the House for a long time remember a number of efforts in this Chamber to reform the House of Lords, but they were not successful. There is no possibility of the Government producing a Green Paper in the autumn. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, for the time being, we have more urgent matters on our plate.

Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity today to hear the BBC radio reports that the West German Government would like the opportunity to obtain North Sea oil more cheaply? In view of the communiqué from the summit conference of the EEC few weeks ago, when the whole question of oil supplies to the Community was discussed, will she say how the Government intend to respond to the request from the West German Government?

Under existing law there would be no possibility of that happening. The oil that the Government can purchase under existing contracts must be purchased at the world price. If that world price is not agreed with BNOC, it can go to arbitration. Those are the laws that we inherited from the previous Labour Administration, and those are the laws that are observed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the intention of the Government to return ownership in nationalised industries directly to the people? Will she further consider whether shares in such corporations as BNOC and BGC could be given directly to all citizens, taxpayers and pensioners? Does she recognise that such a proposal would encourage share ownership, lead to a recognition of the need for profit, and ensure that no further nationalisation could be introduced by any future Labour Government?

Where a large proportion of shares in nationalised industries is being sold to the public we believe that those who work in the industry should have preference in purchasing those shares. That would be to the advantage both of the industry and the British people. With regard to a scheme to give shares in all nationalised industries to the British people, I know that it was partly done in Vancouver. However, we have a rather larger number of people in Britain. But we would not rule out that suggestion.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss with the Minister of Transport the publication of the Government's White Paper on roads? Will she specifically consider the announcement made yesterday by the Merseyside county council to the effect that the Liverpool inner ring road will cost an additional £1 million? Will she consider scrapping that scheme, which has more to do with vested interest than with need, and redeploying the money into the local Health Service to ensure that the local hospitals remain open?

The hon. Gentleman may have a constituency point, but I think that he will recognise that the road programme has been reduced. There is not much scope for it being reduced further. If I were to accede to his request I should receive many complaints from other people.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 5 June.

I refer the hon Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the speeches made by the Secretary of State for Industry in California and other parts of America? Is she aware that he is saying that we are making progress away from stagnation? Can she produce a single shred of evidence to show that that is happening? As the Secretary of State for Industry is in America primarily to find American silicon chip investment for Britain, would not he be better served by announcing now the £25 million for Inmos in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. On the first question, my right hon. Friend is especially concerned to boost the microelectronics industry in Britain. It is a considerably expanding industry, and is taking on far more labour than other industries. I do not want the House to hold me to the precise figure, but I believe that I am right to say that the increase in exports of microelectronics this year over last year is of the order of 30 per cent. That is worth boosting and worth shouting about.

On Inmos, the first £25 million given to it by the previous Labour Administration through the NEB was given to establish a factory in Colorado Springs, and has so far resulted only in about 37 jobs in Britain. We are considering carefully the conditions that we should attach to any money going in that direction.

Will the Prime Minister please answer the question about whether we are moving away from stagnation? Is it not the case that we are facing a year by year decline in our industrial progression? Because of the daily announcement of redundancies, will she please take the matter seriously? What direct responsibility will the Government take for handling the growing level of unemployment which, over the coming months, will become worse?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, I agree that there is a substantial number of redundancies being announced. But I must say what he frequently said from this Dispatch Box—albeit in a slightly different way—that one man's wage increase can cost another man his job. That is frequently happening. Some of the wage increases that are totally unrelated to productivity are pricing whole firms out of the market, and people are choosing to buy more competitive products from overseas.

Whatever may be the impact of wages on the level of employment, is it not the case that the level of interest rates—on which a false start was made last Tuesday—and the Government's monetary policy are having a more direct impact on the number of jobs? Will she take into account what was said by the Manpower Services Commission yesterday, namely, that it cannot fulfil its responsibilities with the present level of revenue that it receives? The right hon. Lady must take responsibility for the level of unemployment. In addition to blaming the trade unions, she has a responsibility and she must assume it.

No one can create genuine jobs by printing money. That only creates more inflation, which leads to more unemployment. I, too, read the report of the Manpower Services Commission. I think that it is worth reading in its entirety. I noticed one very telling comment: The generation of permanent new jobs is outside the Commission's powers.

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 9 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Health Services Bill.

TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Debate on the report of the Committee of Three on Community institutions.

WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Supply [18th Alloted Day]: Until about Seven o'clock there will be a debate on disablement, and afterwards on the construction industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Motion on the Diocese in Europe Church Measure.

FRIDAY 13 JUNE—Debate on the report of the committee of inquiry into the engineering profession under the chairmanship of Sir Montague Finniston (Cmnd 7794.)

MONDAY 16 JUNE—Debate on the report of the Brandt Commission, on a motion for the Adjournment.

[ Debate on report from Committee of Three on Europe:

Relevant published report of the European Legislation etc. Committee — 18th Report para, 2 H/C 159—xviii 1979 – 80 .]

Will the Leader of the of the House take note that our debate on disablement will be about the adverse effects of the Government's policies on the disabled? The short debate on the construction industry will be to press the Government for a higher level of activity in that industry because of the serious unemployment that is occurring in it.

Finally, I should like to ask the Leader of the House about the EEC budget announcement. Now that we begin to examine the small print, we see that the arrangements are not quite as favourable as they seemed at first sight. May we assume that the Government, on an important matter such as this, will now arrange a debate, for which we will certainly wish to ask?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the information on the Opposition's motions. If I had had that information earlier, I should have been happy to announce it on his behalf.

I think that there is a case for a debate on the EEC budget, but it should be taken up and discussed through the usual channels.

In view of the Venice summit, which is about to take place, if there is not time for a debate could my right hon. Friend arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement describing the exact nature of the Western-Middle Eastern peace initiative, which has received scant praise from either the President of Egypt or the President of the United States? Otherwise, we may be faced with one of those unfortunate situations in which what is undertaken by a British Foreign Secretary is later destroyed by the House of Commons.

I shall certainly pass on that request to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I have had no request for a statement by my right hon. Friend till now.

Does the Leader of the House agree that there is an urgent need for a debate on jury vetting, given that the practice, which has been called unconstitutional by at least one judge, is now taking place in courts all over the country and that undertakings given by the Attorney-General to the House are being ignored?

There has been a further development in this matter, with another decision by, I think, the House of Lords. Therefore, we have to consider this matter in regard to the situation in the courts. However, as soon as it is disposed of in that manner I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

My right hon. Friend has given undertakings in the past that before we rise for the Summer Recess there will be an opportunity to discuss the outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee, in particular the proposal about the Public Bill procedure whereby Standing Committees will be allowed to take evidence for two, three or four sittings before proceeding to the discussion of a Bill. May I have his added reassurance that the House will be able to come to a decision on this matter before we rise for the Summer Recess?

I have given that assurance to the House. If the House does not accept that assurance, I do not know that reassurance adds very much to it, because presumably all the currency is invalidated together. It is the Government's clear intention, as stated in the manifesto that the House will have an early opportunity to come to a decision on all the proposals in that report. We shall be placing proposals before the House before the Summer Recess.

Will the Leader of the House consider asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to place in the Library or the Vote Office a precis of the information submitted to him by the various institutions regarding the Finneston report, to aid us in the debate on Friday?

Secondly, we welcome these debates on the Finneston and Brandt reports, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging an early debate on the Burgoyne committee report on offshore safety, as this is very important? While we might delay the matter, awaiting the Norwegian result, we should not delay too long in debating that important matter.

I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that interesting suggestion about putting documents and precis in the Library.

I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future on the Burgoyne report. We have made a good advance in this Business Statement, with debates on two extremely important reports.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on interest rates? If he cannot do that, will he get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on interest rates, particularly as they affect small businesses? Is he aware that unless interest rates fall, small businesses, which are the seedcorn of future employment, will not exist for much longer to provide that employment?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is not the Government's policy to maintain high interest rates a moment longer than is economically necessary. I shall pass on his urgings to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will reflect upon them.

Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent and early debate on the textile industry, which is deeply affected by the high interest rates complained about by his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton)? Does he realise that in the first four months of this year there was a deficit of £200 million on textile goods in this country, and that over 500 jobs a week are being lost in the West Yorkshire industry? When will the Government initiate a debate so that we can check their performance and see what they are doing about it?

I am aware of the grave situation facing the British textile industry. The Government have made it quite plain that when the multi-fibre arrangement, restricting imports into this country, expires in 1981 they are determined that it will be replaced by new measures to assist the industry. I cannot promise an early debate.

In view of the widespread interest in the possibility of a European initiative in the Middle East and the threat to world peace from the impasse that has been reached in the Camp David talks, will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a major debate on the Middle East?

We should all like more debates on foreign affairs about——

The Middle East.

The Middle East is part of foreign affairs. I am afraid that we cannot have a debate of that nature on the Middle East in the immediate future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman impress on his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade the importance of making an oral statement on the Tenerife air disaster—a disaster in which many of my constituents and constituents of a number of hon. Members lost their lives—at a time when holiday travel to areas such as the Spanish islands is reaching a peak? Many people are gravely concerned about the delay in the report of the investigation into the causes of that disaster.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not possible to make a definitive statement on the disaster until the inquiries have been completed. My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will consider making a further interim statement in the light of the outcome of meetings between an accident investigation team from his Department and the Spanish mission of investigation in Madrid, which commenced on 3 June.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to allocate time for a debate on the Brandt and Finniston reports. Does this show a slight chink of light, in that there may now be a possibility of a debate on information technology, which embraces such subjects as Inmos and Ferranti, and the whole strategy of support for the semiconductor industry of the United Kingdom—possibly the most important series of single industrial decisions that we face?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance, but by disposing of debates on these two important reports we increase the statistical likelihood—whatever that may be—of a debate on the matter about which my hon. Friend is so keen.

When will the Secretary of State for Scotland make a statement about the continuing Scottish teachers' pay dispute? Instead of hiding in Whitehall, why does not the Secretary of State for Scotland tell the House that he will give local authorities the money to give teachers a big enough increase to keep up with the high rate of inflation created by this rotten Government?

The pay of Scottish teachers is primarily for the relevant teachers' body, and discussions are continuing.

In view of the considerable interest in Scotland in the proposals for the new Hampden Park, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the possibility of the Government's investing £8 million, which could be an open-ended investment, because that amount will be inadequate to supply the new Hampden? An early debate is needed.

I have noted what my hon. Friend said. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Will the Leader of the House encourage the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement on the question of the 33 United Kingdom companies paying starvation wages to black South African workers? In order to clear up any charge of hypocrisy, will he arrange for an early debate on this issue, especially as it has been revealed in The Guardian that those companies include Quinton Hazell, an offshoot of Burmah Oil, of which the husband of the Prime Minister is a director.

I do not think that that kind of personal reference, which is constantly made by the hon. Gentleman, does anything to advance the serious cause that he no doubt—[ Interruption .] The fact that it was mentioned in The Guardian is no reason to repeat it in the House—possibly quite the reverse. The question is clearly a matter of considerable social importance, but I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continuing military occupation of the West Bank elevates the need for an urgent debate on the Middle East above that of simply a general debate on foreign affairs? Is he further aware that there would be widespread support in the House for the Government's view that we are not prepared to tolerate an American veto on any British or European initiative? Will he please take note that we need an urgent debate on this sensitive and dangerous situation?

I have noted the view expressed by my hon. Friend, and I shall give it due weight, but a number of important subjects are competing for debates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Secretary of State for Trade to explain to the House and to the country why essential information about the payment by British companies of wages below starvation level to black workers in South Africa is not being published? As the Prime Minister made it clear that that information is available in the Library, what possible reason is there for hiding the information and putting the Government in the dock, along with the South African Government?

The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has been fully answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Her answer may not have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but she went a long way in her constructive reply, and I do not think that I can add to it.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on a system of tax allowances for taxidermists, in order to encourage the Labour Party to have the Leader of the Opposition stuffed, so that he may be kept around for a little longer, in view of the fact that there are no plausible alternatives? If there is no time for such a debate, in view of the strong feelings expressed by hon. Members on the Government Benches about Irish Republican citizens being allowed to vote in our general elections, will he arrange a debate on that issue?

I do not think that I shall venture into the interesting territory that has been opened up before me by my hon. Friend. On the whole, Business Question Time is a time for a a peaceable exchange of views, and I do not wish to put that at risk.

On the question of the list of British firms that has been compiled by Mr. Vose, our labour attaché in Pretoria, cannot the Leader of the House see the inconsistency between the Prime Minister's reply to me this afternoon—that this list is available to hon. Members—and the refusal to publish the list for public examination? Is this not a complete violation of the principle of open government, to which the Government are supposedly committed? Surely, there should be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade.

I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. But if those figures are made available in the Library, that makes them available to many articulate hon. Members, who can make good use of them.

May I re-emphasise the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd)? The Secretary of State for Industry is at present in America discussing ways of obtaining further finance and experience from Silicon Valley for this country. Surely when he returns he will make a statement. Would that not be a suitable time at which to have a three-hour debate on this important export market, which is growing at the moment?

I agree that this is a most important subject for our trade. If there are significant developments, of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement on them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise from the questions that have been put by my hon. Friends that they are asking for a statement on the matter of the wages paid to black South African workers? Although a document has been placed in the Library, we are asking for a statement in the House. In the light of what has occurred and of questions today, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement next week, giving an answer to the House of Commons on the subject?

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no need for me to reconsider what I said. We have had an answer from the Prime Minister this afternoon and I have said that I shall draw the exchanges in the House this afternoon to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said, and as actions taken by the Government in the next month or so will be critical to the lives of every man, woman and child in this country in terms of Middle East policy? Surely that deserves a debate, over and above a normal, global foreign affairs debate.

I have not promised a general debate on foreign affairs. What I am saying is that there is a great pressure on time for the remainder of this Session, and I cannot promise an early debate either on foreign affairs in general or on the Middle East in particular.

Several Hon. Members rose ——

Order. I am prepared to call all the hon. Gentlemen who have risen—

Mrs. Renée Short rose ——

Well, hon. Members. I beg the hon. Lady's pardon.

I am prepared to call the hon. Members who have risen, but I hope that it will be borne in mind that if they cannot get in on the first short debate there will be no point in their complaining about not being called then.

Does the Leader of the House recognise that one day for the Health Services Bill is wholly inadequate, in view of the fact that it is a United Kingdom Bill and that in Committee there has been no opportunity to debate the structure or anything else concerned with the Health Service in Scotland? As the Government have a considerable number of new clauses and amendments to move on Report, will the right hon. Gentleman consider either suspending the rule on Monday or giving extra time on another day?

We have already had half a day's debate on this subject and we have a second opportunity on Monday of dealing with it. One has to balance, by discussions through the usual channels, the need for thorough debate and the need not to go on beyond a reasonable hour.

Reverting to the question of the EEC agreement on the budget, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has some urgency, as many hon. Members are very concerned about the agreement reached, particularly in relation to higher food prices and the failure to reach a broad balance? I appreciate that this matter is to be discussed through the usual channels, but the matter is much more urgent than that. Hon. Members want a debate, and I believe that they should have that debate next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate urgently, but we have not received urgent representations—[ Interruption .] Had there been urgent representations from the Opposition Front Bench they would have been taken fully into account. But I have heard what has been said today and I shall consider what can be done.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to see early-day motion 620, standing in my name and the names of over 100 hon. Members, representing all parties in the House? [ That this House appeals to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to exercise the power of discretion available to him under the Immigration Act and withdraw the proposal to remove Verghese (Juno) and Meena Varki from the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that though technically in breach of Home Office procedure, the couple have, over the seven years they have lived in the United Kingdom, made an outstanding contribution to better the life of their neighbours, and worked effectively full" time and unpaid to promote and maintain good community relations in the Greater London area .]

The motion calls on the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion in the case of Juno and Meena Varki, two Camden residents, and in view of the widespread outside interests in this case, as well as interests inside the House and the interest in the broader principles of the Home Secretary's discretion, will the Leader of the House urgently arrange for a debate on this question?

I am aware of this case, which has aroused anxiety and concern among hon. Members for some time, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, after considering all the representations submitted to him by hon. Members, came to the conclusion that the deportation should proceed, and signed the order in December. Since then my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—has had two meetings with hon. Members to consider further representations—I think that the last meeting was as recently as 7 May—but he also, having examined the situation, has concluded that there are no grounds for revising the decision.

May I remind the Leader of the House of his undertaking some weeks ago on the crisis in our prisons? May I ask for a date for that debate? Also, will he draw to the attention of the Attorney-General or the relevant Minister the desirability of his presence at that debate, as a number of hon Members on both sides of the House are likely to make recommendations that will affect sentencing policy, which is outside the control of the Home Secretary alone?