asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the growth of neo-Fascist activity in the United Kingdom.

I have no plans to do so. But I take a serious view of these developments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not have immediate plans to do so, promise within his Department to depute members of the staff and the police in general to keep a far better weather eye on these matters than seems to have been done up to now? Is it not absolutely unacceptable that we while we are struggling to retain racial harmony in this country there is actually neo-Fascist activity which is seeking to stimulate political activity on the basis of race hatred, which we cannot possibly tolerate?

As the hon Genatleman will be aware, we are reviewing the Public Order Act. We are continuing to do that and we shall, of course, report to the House as soon as we have done so. I can only add that all of us must stand against violence and provocation, from wherever it comes. Frankly, some of these activities are very bad, but I wish that the reaction to them would also be kept out of the way so that everybody concerned eschews violence.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that neo-Communist activity, such as the expulsion of the Social Democratic Alliance from the Labour Party, which has been described by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) as an outrage, is just as objectionable?

I have many responsibilities at the Home Office, but—thank goodness—that is not one of them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation to discuss the expansion of the local radio station network.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the report of his Department's working party on local radio.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BBC regularly. As regards the expansion of the local radio network, he has now received the Home Office working party's third report, which contains comprehensive proposals for the further development of BBC and independent local radio. Comments on the report are being invited by 30 April 1981. My right hon. Friend will reach a decision on its proposals in the light of those comments and after further consultation with the BBC and the IBA.

Is the Minister aware that when my hon. Friends and I recently met the director-general and the chairman of the BBC governors about the financial difficulties facing local radio they told us that it was the responsibility of the Home Secretary, but that when we question the Home Secretary on this matter in the House he tells us that it is the responsibility of the BBC governors? Is he aware that such buck-passing is leading to a deterioration of local radio, in spite of the splendid and dedicated efforts of the station staffs? Will he, therefore, consider changing the format of the BBC budget and specifying the amount which is allocated to local radio? Finally, will he confirm his commitment to the development of local radio?

I think that it would be a mistake to do that, because as soon as one starts specifying in that way what the BBC must provide in the way of services one immediately detracts from the independence of the BBC. There has been no buck-passing. The division of responsibilities is quite clear. As far as money is concerned, the BBC decides how it wishes to spend it. With regard to the extension of stations, the procedure to be adopted is as I outlined in my initial answer.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that while the expansion of local radio may be very desirable in rural areas, in view of the great financial difficulties now facing the BBC and the cuts which it has already had to impose it would be preferable for it to concentrate on expanding its national networks and on giving the best possible service nationally?

I would not necessarily agree with that point of view.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to warn people about the consequences of nuclear war.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by his Department on publicity on civil defence since the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), took on responsibility for this matter; and what results there have been.

Two official booklets—"Protect and Survive" and "Nuclear Weapons"—are already on sale. Two more—concerned with domestic nuclear shelters—will be put on sale next month. All these are self-financing ventures. In addition, I and officials of the Department have participated in the widespread coverage of civil defence on television and radio and in the press. The outcome has been a better informed public.

As the Government, in effect, banned the television broadcast of the Open University lecture on nuclear warfare a few weeks ago, following the precedent that was established 15 years ago by the banning of the television programme "The War Game", surely the people of the country are totally unaware of the awful consequences of nuclear warfare. Will the Government do more than just publishing that silly booklet "Protect and Survive", whose suggestions about whitewashing windows and creating shelters out of tables and doors are totally inadequate for nuclear warfare? In fact, will the hon. and learned Gentleman make arrangements for a regular television broadcast?

The Government have not banned any programme. The hon. Gentleman would do better service to the cause of civil defence if he accepted the fact that as far as it goes the precautions and measures suggested in "Protect and Survive"—simple as they are and, therefore, capable of ridicule—would, if actually implemented, save a large number of lives if there were a nuclear attack.

When will the Minister publish the guide to suitable shelters? If those shelters really are any good, which everyone very much doubts, why does not the Department of Health and Social Security provide a special needs payment to build a shelter for those on social security, or is it just a case of only the rich surviving?

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether the shelters are useless and ought to be ignored or whether they are so valuable that everybody ought to have them. The answer to the factual part of his question is 22 January.

Will my hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of all Conservative Members on the recent appointment of a senior Service officer to look after and co-ordinate civil defence matters? Will he confirm that the Russians, who are arguably our greatest enemy, and the Swiss, who are no one's enemy, both have effective and powerful civil defence forces?

Congratulations are always welcome, and never more so than at this time of the year. Sir Leslie Mayor will provide an extremely valuable service to the country in co-ordinating volunteer effort in this sphere and giving advice to the Government. His experience is immense, and we are glad to have secured his services. My hon. Friend is quite right in his assessment of what other countries are doing.

In view of the fact that the Home Office is to spend an additional £30 million over the next three years on civil defence, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what areas in the Home Office will suffer from cuts in order to provide that extra money? It is a considerable sum. I do not think that the Minister should simply say, as he did in a written answer, that it would be impracticable to tell the House where that£30 million would be found from the Home Office.

The answer that was given is accurate. The extra expenditure is being absorbed within the budget generally and has not led to specific cuts in particular areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, by requests to chief constables and by such other sources as are available to him, he will make an estimate of the presence of the police at marches which have taken place in the United Kingdom so far this year and which have been organised by the National Front.

The police presence at 11 such marches on which I have information varied between 400 and 4,600.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost in terms of police manpower and expenditure to protect the thugs of the National Front fills many people with utter disgust? Is he not aware that the sole reason why the National Front marches in areas where there are Asian and black communities is that it seeks to terrorise and humiliate those communities? If the Home Secretary will not ban those marches, which many people believe he should, will he take far more vigorous action against the National Front under existing legislation than he has so far done?

The hon. Gentleman has raised various points. I certainly deplore the activities of the National Front, as I deplore the activities of all those who use violence and other means to destroy our society. Secondly, I must make it perfectly clear that under existing legislation, which is being examined in our review of the Public Order Act, I do not have the power to ban the marches. That is a question first for the chief constable, who applies to his local authority. Of course, in London that is to me as the police authority. If the chief constable in the Metropolitan area applies for a ban, I shall certainly grant it.

I fully agree with that. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grievance felt by taxpayers and ratepayers that the heavy cost of policing provocative demonstrations falls on them and not on those responsible for such demonstrations? While this is a difficult problem, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has found a solution?

In the end, this will be a matter for the House when considering the review of the Public Order Act. I come back to the point that I made earlier. Many people doubt whether we should continue to have marches at all, in view of their cost and the trouble which they cause to many ratepayers and taxpayers as a result. However, if we do that we shall have to do it for everyone, and no organisation will be exempt.

Will the Secretary of State think again about what he has just said? Surely it is quite wrong to face the prospect either of banning all marches or permitting all marches. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that at present the law permits him to exercise his judgment. Does he not agree that two conflicting principles are involved? In a free society, people should be entitled to free speech and the right to demonstrate, but it is equally a principle that a march which has all the paraphernalia of Nazism is deeply offensive and provocative to the populations of the areas through which it takes place.

Either the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said or he misunderstood what I said. I said that if the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police believes that serious disorder would arise from a march, he would apply to me for a ban. I made it very clear that in my judgment, if the Commissioner did so apply, I would grant it. I should also make it clear that in the provinces chief constables must go to the relevant local authorities. If it is decided that they wish to have a ban, the matter would come to me. I regard the decision of the local chief constable as enormously important, and unless I was persuaded of some major reason why I should not agree to a ban I would agree in all such cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to discuss the Nationality Bill proposals with the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Since the publication of the White Paper on British nationality law, I have discussed the proposals with members of the commission, and, in addition, our officials have attended meetings of the commission to explain the proposals and answer questions. The commission has also presented its views to us in writing.

Will the Minister see the commission again, because it is quite clear that recent consultation by the commission with ethnic minority groups has revealed that there is grave concern about the effects of the White Paper proposals? In particular, they fear that a severe racial disadvantage will be created if children born in this country are not automatically British citizens. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore see the commissioner and at least withdraw that proposal from the Bill before it is published?

I am always willing to see the CRE and the chairman of the commission. As for the proposal, I ask the hon. Gentleman to await our proposals.

According to a report in The Times today, it seems that the CRE has been trying to bring together the various ethnic minority organisations in a national front against the Government putting forward this proposal, which was in the manifesto submitted to the British people. Is that in order?

I think it is in order. I think that the CRE has considerable freedom of action. However, there is a claim going about that our proposals are in some way racialist. Since the majority of them were canvassed in the last Government's Green Paper, if our proposals are racialist so were theirs. They are not, in fact.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the public are adequately protected from pornography; what changes in the law he is contemplating; and if he will make a statement.

Few of us, I think, are entirely satisfied with the present law on this subject, but there is no general agreement on how it should be changed. We are giving further thought to the matter in the light of the recommendations made by the Williams committee on obscenity and film censorship and public reaction to its report.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is still great public concern at the unacceptable level of pornography in our society and that many people look to the Conservative Government to do something about it? Although the legislative programme will be very full, will he at least make a start by giving a fair wind to any Private Member's Bill which seeks to do something about pornographic display?

I accept that there is public concern on this matter, and I understand it. Obviously, we must wait and see the terms of any Bill which is introduced, but in principle I would not be opposed to any such development.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Williams committee said that the majority of those who gave evidence to it were particularly concerned about public display and that there is, therefore, a stronger case for acting on that front than there is for acting on any of the other proposals in the Williams report?

The committee said that, but it also pointed out that display was not the sole source of the problem.

Does the Minister regard page 3 of The Sun as pornographic?

I do not always see it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make statement on the progress of Lord Diplock's review of telephone interception.

Lord Diplock is still working on his review.

Will the Home Secretary accept that responsibility for these matters should rest with this House, with an annual report debatable in the House, rather than depend upon investigative journalism or any of the other ways in which it is brought to public attention? Does he accept that secret reports by a Tory judge are less than satisfactory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Order. It seems that the House is asking me to rule that "Tory" is an offensive word. I am not prepared to rule in that way.

Will the Home Secretary—

On a point of order. Is it in order—

Order. We usually leave points of order until the end of Question Time.

Will the Home Secretary accept that secret reports by a Tory judge will give the impression that there is a cover-up? Is it not the best form of accountability for the right hon. Gentleman to report directly to this democratically elected House?

On a point of order—

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) seems wide of the mark. It is perfectly clear, and was made clear when Lord Diplock was appointed to do this job, that his first review will be published. The hon. Member talks of a "secret" report from a Tory judge, but the report will not be secret. I do not think that Lord Diplock would in the least like to be described as a Tory judge, but that is a matter for Lord Diplock and the hon. Member to sort out and not one for me. The question whether such a report will be debated in the House is not for me, but when Lord Diplock has made his report I should welcome its being debated here.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order that one of Her Majesty's judges, who are supposed to have no political colour when they are acting officially as judges, should be labelled with a political label, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has tried to do?

It is not our custom to criticise judges or to attribute to them beliefs that they may not have, but I am in some difficulty, because some people may be called Labour judges and feel upset at that description. Someone might be even more distressed to be called a Liberal judge. We had better move on. Mr. Winnick.

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred in questions to Lord Diplock as being a Tory judge. I appreciate that to describe anybody as a Tory is a compliment, and no doubt it was so intended, but the fact remains that Opposition Members are more and more tending to describe judges as Tory.

:They are all Tories.

That implies a bias. When hon. Members come in this place to talk about judges, is it in order to attribute any bias, complimentary or otherwise, to them?

:Order. I, too, have had a chance to consider the point of order raised earlier. It is wrong for any of us to attribute to any judge a bias. It so happens that the judge in this case is not sitting in court. He is acting as chairman for an inquiry for the Home Secretary. However, I deprecate calling judges by anything other than "the judge".

:Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, this judge was at one stage in his career a Conservative Party candidate. I do not suppose that his values have changed. If with the record of this Government he has abandoned them, that is very welcome.

Order. I have made it clear that I consider, and in future I shall so rule, that it is offensive to refer to a judge of the High Court in any way other than as a judge of the High Court. It is not for us to add an adjective. Otherwise, we shall be lowering our parliamentary standards.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to investigate, with a view to amending the law, the military and para-military training undertaken by extremist political organisations.

:Under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1936, it is an offence to control, manage, organise or train an association of persons for the purpose of usurping the functions of the police or the Armed Forces or for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object. The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police, in consultation as necessary with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I am not aware of any deficiency in the law in this respect.

Based on that reply, will the Home Secretary examine the allegations that one Nazi type of organisation is receiving military training, which, if true, are very disturbing? Will he draw a distinction between marches by perfectly law-abiding citizens, as part of our normal political democracy, and marches by groups organised by the professional promoters of race hatred? Is it not necessary to make a clear distinction?

It would be very dangerous for any Home Secretary to try to differentiate all the time between the various groups who decide to march and demonstrate. Of course I accept that there are those, political parties and others, who have a perfect right to do so and who do so without violence. However, it would be dangerous for me to differentiate among the others. We should await the review of the Public Order Act and consider what we are going to do. There is a difficult balance to be struck in all these matters between the democratic rights of people to demonstrate and protest and anything which is provocative and damaging to our society. It is a difficult balance for all of us, but we must be totally even-handed in how we deal with it.

On the last point, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that he is much less partial than Labour Members to the use of the word "extremist"? Does he not agree that although the National Front is nauseating, so are the Anti-Nazi League, the Socialist Workers Party and such organisations as Militant? Does he not also agree that the sort of people we saw outside the Conservative Party conference deliberately stirring up trouble are every bit as bad as the National Front?

:When I look at the television screen, which is not very often, and see some of the demonstrations which are held by all kinds of organisations, I find them pretty nauseating.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to waive the licence fee for the operation of active deflectors for television reception.

:No, Sir. It is necessary for the Home Office to make a charge sufficient to cover the administrative costs incurred in issuing the licence. The broadcasting authorities have co-operated in devising licensing arrangements which keep the Home Office's involvement, and hence the cost of the licence, to the essential minimum. We are grateful to them for this.

Does my hon. Friend realise that some of my constituents who need active deflectors to get television reception will be disappointed by his reply? Does he realise that, in addition to having to raise the capital to install the deflectors, they find that an assessor will rate those small installations and that they must pay an annual licence charge for the deflectors in addition to the licence fee that all hon. Members, and most members of the public, pay for their colour television? Will he please reconsider?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the principle must be that a separate fee is charged in respect of each device for which separate technical approval and national and international clearance is involved. Subject to that, any proposals will be considered carefully on their merits.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with present manning levels in the fire services.

I have no reason to believe that present manning levels are inadequate. Fire authorities are responsible for ensuring that they have sufficient personnel in their fire brigades to enable them to carry out their statutory functions. I am involved when an authority seeks my approval to a reduction in the number of firemen in its fire brigade establishment scheme.

Given the recent pay settlement with the firemen, will the Home Secretary give a clear assurance that there will be no reduction in manning levels and that sufficient cover will be maintained, particularly in the inner city conurbations?

I can give a clear and positive assurance that applications from any fire authorities for changes in manning levels will be considered in the normal way by the chief inspector of fire services. He will then report on what he believes to be the position as regards safety and fire cover. I shall take full account of anything that the chief inspector of fire services says.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general feeling in the community that in many districts the fire service is considerably overmanned and that great economies could be made by reducing manpower numbers? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the men employed are sometimes engaged in a great degree of moonlighting?

That is a matter for the fire authorities to consider. If the fire authorities were to agree with the hon. Gentleman, they would submit proposals to me. Those proposals would be studied by the chief inspector, and if he thought that the proposals allowed for adequate fire cover I would sanction them. As I made clear at the time of the fire service dispute, a limited number of applications were put forward, and with the agreement of the chief inspector I agreed to all but one of them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a review of the legislation relating to rape to ensure that adequate penalties are available to the courts.

I cannot think that such a review is necessary, as the maximum sentence for rape is already life imprisonment.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the annual figures for rape show that the incidence of that crime has increased by 400 per cent. over the past 30 years? Does he not agree that rape is an appalling crime that affects women and young children? It is difficult to conceive that anything other than custodial sentence should be given to those who are found guilty. Will my hon. and learned Friend at least review that part of the law on rape?

It is the task of the House to provide the courts with adequate penalties, but according to our system it is for the courts to decide what penalties should be applied. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, and that indicates that the House shares—as I am sure every hon. Member does—the serious view that my hon. Friend has rightly expressed.

Has the Minister seen the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which recommends that rape should be an offence when it is committed against wives, just as it is an offence when committed against other women? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to comment on that?

I would rather not comment on that, because the report that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to is a working paper. The committee has not finished its work or produced its final report. When it does so, we shall consider it.

Have the reforms in the law on sexual offences, which the House introduced during the last Parliament, been effective?

It is difficult to give a clear-cut answer. Indeed, it is impossible to do so within the ambit of my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prison places will be created within the next 10 years.

Current projects should produce 2,700 places over the next five years; and new prisons due to start between 1981 and 1983 should eventually produce another 2,130 places. Approval has not yet been given to projects beyond 1983, but the Government aim to sustain a rolling programme to provide more new prisons.

As so many of our prisons are over 100 years old, and as the Conservative Party nationalised prisons in the 1870s— and predominantly starved them of proper investment for the building of new prisons—does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that priority should be given to a prison building programme in any allocation of scarce resources? Old prisons could then be closed and replaced. Unless that happens, we shall have no constructive way of dealing with prisoners.

It would be unwise for any hon. Members—whatever party they may belong to—to claim that anyone has done what should have been done for our prisons. For many years, the responsibility for failing to maintain a prison building programme has rested with successive Governments and with the House, which has not exercised sufficient pressure. We are all to blame. At a time of great economic difficulty I am determined, with the support of my colleagues, to maintain a prison building programme. Successive Governments have not always done that despite the fact that they have sometimes been in office during easier times.

When my right hon. Friend considers the future of prisons, will he bear in mind that the morale of many prison officers, particularly those in prisons such as Brixton, appears to be reaching an all-time low? Will he do what he can, as soon as he can, to fortify and restore the morale of the service?

I shall do what I can because that is my task. We must accept that there is a difficult industrial situation. It would be wrong for me to comment on it now. However, my hon. and learned Friend should not refer to Brixton or take it out of context as a result of recent developments. Those developments are the subject of an important inquiry which I immediately authorised under a man who is probably the most distinguished person in the prison service. We must await its report before jumping to conclusions.

Does the Home Secretary agree that we would not need additional places in our prisons if some of those now in them were no longer there? [Interruption.] Has the Home Secretary read the representations that I sent to him during the past 14 days? They concern four young people in Liverpool who were gaoled for 14 days after appealing against a£25 fine.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman means. He has made an important point. On several occasions, I have made clear that shorter sentences and non-custodial sentences for non-violent offenders represent an important development. However, they will not relieve us of the need to have a substantial and sensible building programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I should be wrong to comment on particular sentences. However, I hope that those concerned will always consider some of the good options to non-custodial sentences and that they will use them in the case of non-violent offenders.

Given that during the first month of the prison officers' dispute the prison population fell by 4,000 people as a result of shorter sentences, is it not clear that the prison building programme would not be necessary if courts were to change their sentencing policies, just as they have done during the past month? As there has been no corresponding increase in crime, will the Home Secretary bring that point to the notice of the Lord Chief Justice?

The hon. Gentleman is at odds with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). I agree with the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend more than I do with him. I accept that during the dispute there has been a reduction in the prison population. I hope that the dispute will end, and we shall then see what will happen. I share the hon. Gentleman's opinion that a reduction in the number of people sent to prison is a major objective. However, even if that objective were achieved we should still need a substantial prison building programme because of the state of many of our old Victorian prisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision has been made for nuclear shelters for (a)local government officials and (b)elected members of local authorities in the event of a nuclear war.

Local authorities have not been advised to provide nuclear shelters as such for their members or officials. They have, however, been asked to provide a small wartime headquarters in protected accommodation.

Is not the Minister aware that the plans which exist include the prospect of a bureaucratic dictatorship after a nuclear attack, because there is no provision for elected officials, and that in an atmosphere in which people are more and more concerned that the Conservative Government's defence policy, with Trident and cruise, is more likely to lead us into a nuclear catastrophe there will be no provision for democratically elected people to be around after that catastrophe?

The second part of the supplementary question, although untrue, is irrelevant to the question.

Is it my hon. and learned Friend's view that Members of this House are as expendable as local councillors or less expendable?

Fortunately, that is not a matter on which I am called upon to pronounce an opinion.

How many nuclear shelters are there in the United Kingdom? How many people would be able to use them, in view of the fact that they would have only a three-minute warning? Is it the fact that the Home Office has calculated that there would be 30 million deaths in Britain if there were to be a nuclear war?

It depends on what one calls a nuclear shelter. The number of deaths would also depend on the nature of the attack, and it is by no means clear that that would necessarily be of a particular kind. But what we are doing, and what is the most constructive further step, is to arrange a survey of existing public buildings which are capable of use, whether by adaptation or not, as shelters for a substantial number of people in the population as a whole.

Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the emergency plans which are in the hands of local authorities at present are secret plans or not? If they are not, should not the local authorities make them available to the public?

The general nature of the plans that exist is not secret.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the proposal to introduce advance notice for processions.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend aim to announce the Government's conclusions on this and other matters being considered in the review of the Public Order Act in the new year.

I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's reply. Although it is unlikely that he will find time for anything in this Session, can we look forward to a reform of the law in the next Session?

That is not a matter for me.

Early in the new year or late in the new year? Will the Minister say whether he agrees that, whatever arrangement we make about giving notice of processions, that arrangement should apply throughout the country, because it touches on civil liberties and should not depend upon varying provisions in different local enactments?

I cannot specify the period in the new year in which it will come, but I hope that the answer I have given indicates that it will not be unduly delayed.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many processions turn out to be much nearer to provocative marches? Therefore, will he make sure that any arrangements apply equally to those who wish to provoke race hatred as to those who wish to provoke class hatred?

That is certainly one of the points that we shall want to consider in the review.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that two National Front processions through the London borough of Lewisham over the last few years have caused grave offence and damage to the people of Lewisham? Will he ensure that, when the review has taken place, local authorities within the London area will be given the same sorts of powers as local authorities outside the London area, as the local councils know best what are the real problems?

The role of local authorities in dealing with these matters is obviously one of the most important points that has been considered in the review, but I cannot anticipate the outcome of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the Cheshire constabulary.

1,821 at 30 November.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he appreciate that, coming as I do from a county in which we had the Boarded Barn murders, where the two innocent young bank clerks were killed after the Prestbury bank robbery, and where Thomas Hughes was shot down after having committed terrible murders in Derbyshire, I believe that it is most important to keep police establishments up to the maximum? Will he, therefore, continue not only to devote as much attention to the maintenance of the police and their morale but from time to time ensure that the punishment meted out to killers fits the crimes that they have committed?

I agree that we must build up the strength and the morale of the police service. The record of the Government in doing so is a remarkable one and is recognised to be so throughout the country. What we have to achieve as well, through the use of police officers, is good value for money. I have never made any secret of my belief that the more we can see what is simply described as "Bobbies on the beat on their feet", the more likely we shall be to deal with many of today's difficult problems.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 December.

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.

Since monetary policy is clearly in ruins, as the Treasury Select Committee points out today, why is the right hon. Lady taking on, at£50,000 a year, one of the most extreme monetarists to advise her on economic policy? Does this mean that we are to have an even bigger and more disastrous dose of monetarism in the years to come?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman's supposition, with which I do not wholly agree, is that the monetary policy is in ruins, it seems to me to be very advisable to take on a person who is an expert in putting it right again.

Is not my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that, as First Lord of the Treasury, she is perhaps presiding over an era in which the Department of Industry, in particular, is not supporting her monetary stringency? As a result of the Industry Bill, money will be pouring out. On the one hand, we are asking local government to control its expenditure. On the other hand, we are asking, in the Industry Bill, for the expenditure of another£4 billion for the National Enterprise Board.

I can quite see my hon. Friend's point that a large amount of money is being poured out to help the nationalised industries. That money has to be found by an efficient private sector. Nationalised industries are not nearly such a good bargain for the consumer as the private sector, and the sooner we can reduce the monopoly and increase competition, the better it will be for the people of this country.

Does not the right hon. Lady think that the Select Committee's report describes an extremely serious situation, especially when it underlines the collapse of manufacturing output in the last year and the projected further decline of manufacturing output in the coming year, which it describes as being as bad a collapse as anything we have known in this country since 1929? For how long does she think that this will go on?

If we had not taken so much money out of the private sector for the public sector, private manufacturing industry would be in a much healthier position than it is.

We know that the right hon. Lady and a few of her supporters do not want to discuss the Select Committee's report, but the rest of the country will want to discuss it. Is she aware that after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appeared before the Committee many of her distinguished colleagues who were on that Committee signed the report saying that they had not the foggiest notion what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant?

I am very well aware that the Select Committee's report was highly critical of the amount of public spending above the forecast expenditure, of the amount of public borrowing and of the interest rates to which that led. The remedy for that is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman rejects.

rose—

Sit down.

Will the right hon. Lady understand that, especially in the face of reports of this nature signed by many of her hon. Friends, the House and the country will not be fobbed off much longer with such answers by her on these questions?

Nor will the House be fobbed off with the totally inadequate questioning by the right hon. Gentleman.

During the day, will my right hon. Friend devote her mind to the question of the economies which are being forced on the Ministry of Defence and their industrial implications? Does she agree that the net effect of some of these economies now appears to be that of finding and dispersing the research and development teams at the sharp end of British industry and giving the money in subsidies to British Rail and British Leyland?

There is certainly quite a lot of money going in subsidies to British Leyland, British Steel and British Rail. Last year there was an increase in real terms of 3 per cent. in defence expenditure. This year it will he at least 2½ per cent., and it may reach 3 per cent. We must look to the distribution of that extra expenditure among the many areas in defence—pay, numbers and equipment. I understand that my hon. Friend wants a good deal of it to be spent on equipment.

Is the Prime Minister confirming the reports of her new adviser at£50,000 a year? If so, is there any precedent for doubling the salary of a civil servant out of party funds? Is she aware that there is good economic advice available free from the people who are trying to run industry in this country against the policies of the Government?

The salary of Mr. Alan Walters will be that of a second permanent secretary.

Topped up.

Topped up privately. There is nothing unusual about the salary of a civil servant being topped up privately to a far greater extent than is being done in this case. It so happens that from public funds Mr. Alan Walters will be paid£89 a year more than the Leader of the Opposition. I know which I think is the best bargain.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 18 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some time ago.

In order to help the British Steel Corporation, will the Prime Minister sanction energy subsidies and urge British car makers to purchase British-made steel strip? Will the right hon. Lady carefully scrutinise the proposed 1,000 extra redundancies at the BSC works at Shotton, which has already suffered 7,000 job losses this year? Does she accept that on this issue constituents feel that they have been betrayed? We have already made our sacrifice. In Flint, unemployment now stands at 32 per cent.

I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. We made Shotton a special development area and allocated an extra£20 million to the Welsh Development Agency to spend on the Shotton area during the next three years so that extra jobs might be brought in to replace those which have gone.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the strong possibility that, in the event of suicide by one of the IRA hunger strikers, all hell may break loose in both Ulster and elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will she assure the House that all possible contingency plans have been made, in particular those appertaining to the security of the Palace of Westminster?

Automatically, all possible contingency plans have been made in so far as events can be foreseen. I just hope that, while there is still a chance, those on hunger strike may take the course of life rather than the course of death.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Northern Ireland have been greatly reassured by her refusal to surrender on the Maze prison issue? Is she further aware that her determination will reap rich rewards in security terms in 1981?

I believe that will be so. If we were ever to give in—to give political status to people who have committed murder and other terrible crimes—we should put at risk the lives of many innocent men, women and children. That is why we shall never do it. In so far as the hunger strike had that objective, it has totally and utterly failed. We have already gone a very long way on humanitarian grounds with regard to all prisoners in Northern Ireland. We can go no further.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some time ago.

Has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to read the Shelter report which was published earlier this week? Is she aware that that report states that more than 3 million people in this country are living in bad housing conditions? What hope can she hold out this Christmas to people who are living in homes which have been unimproved, are on the waiting list or are living in overcrowded conditions? Does she accept that no moratorium can be imposed on leaking roofs or rotting joists?

Many of us would like to spend more money on improving houses, but it would mean spending less money elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is always asking for more money to be spent. That can be gained only by printing money, which would be futile and would increase inflation, by taxing more, by putting up rates, by borrowing more or, alternatively, by shifting expenditure from one Department to another.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, looking ahead to the coming year, if we are to have money available for general spending on capital and investment projects and projects which may assist with unemployment, it is essential that we keep our overall spending under firm control?

I entirely agree about overall spending, but it is also important that we distinguish between revenue and capital spending and that we cut down revenue spending to leave sufficient for capital spending, which is, after all, roads, construction and equipment. Opposition Members will not agree to the concept of cutting down revenue spending sufficiently to allow enough capital spending.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the fact that 1981 will be the: international year of disabled persons? Can she assure the House that the Government will do more than pay lip service to that very noble cause and will bring forward specific proposals to assist disabled people?

We have tried to demonstrate how very much we think of that particular cause by, for example, increasing the mobility allowances for the disabled and by doing everything that we can to support Motability, which provides cars for those who could not otherwise have them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the cause very much at heart and in mind.

Bearing in mind the slack in the steel and shipbuilding industries at present and the vast level of taxpayers' support to those industries, is it not highly regrettable that the Royal Navy will not be in a position for the first three years of the lifetime of this Government to place an order for a major vessel, given the level of threat that exists from abroad? Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of passing the money to the shipbuilding and steel industries in the form of orders for ships for the Royal Navy rather than in the form of handouts?

My hon. Friend will already have heard the figures that I gave: a 3 per cent. increase in the defence budget last year and at least 2½per cent. and possibly 3 per cent. this year. How that is allocated between the Army, the Air Force and the Royal Navy and between equipment and pay must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. In so far as the shipbuilding intervention fund is concerned, many of us would wish that more of it would go to building ships for the Royal Navy, but sometimes one has to keep work going at rather different shipbuilding yards and assist the building of other ships.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the grouping of questions is a matter for the Minister and not for you, but will you confirm that where two questions are as different as Nos. 2 and 16 were today one would expect the Minister to make every possible effort to inform hon. Members concerned that they were being taken together?

I understand that it is normally the custom that if questions are being grouped the Minister notifies the hon. Members concerned.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act: