asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in the light of the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure.

I should like to thank the chairman, Sir Cyril Philips, and the members of the commission for a comprehensive and valuable report. Their thoughtful discussion of a wide range of important issues affecting the role of the police and the liberty of the subject, supported by an imaginative research programme, deserves very careful and considered reflection. Before reaching their own conclusions the Government will be studying the commission's recommendations and taking full account of public discussion and comments.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his response. Is he prepared to accept that one of the important facets of the report is the question of telephone tapping? Will he give an undertaking to the effect that he is not prepared to allow anyone else to take decisions on telephone tapping and that he will not give authority for anyone else to authorise tapping other than his own office?

There is another question on that matter. I think I had better answer it then.

Will my right hon. Friend, in considering the report, bear in mind the anxieties of many people about the considerable increase in crime, particularly sophisticated crime? Will his response take into account the belief of many that the exercise of police powers requires that the arrangements shall be both sensible and workable?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The commission has put before us the arguments on which any balanced judgment must be made. Irrespective of whether one agrees with the commission's conclusions, no one can doubt the value of the research that has been done and the way the arguments have been set put. It is obviously right, in a free society, that the protection of our citizens against increasingly sophisticated crime, on the one hand, must be balanced with the rights and liberties of the subject, on the other. That is what this important report is all about. I hope that hon. Members, in their comments, will be careful and seek to find the right balance through Parliament.

Does the Home Secretary agree that if some of the commission's proposals such as those on arrest and detention were implemented, they would swing the balance of power still further and unnecessarily in favour of the police and potentially worsen police relations with the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, as part of his careful consideration, he will take fully into account the views of individuals and organisations on these issues and will implement the recommendation for the tape recording of interviews of suspects, given the unanimity on this issue?

The first point illustrates the importance of achieving a balance. There will be those who believe that some increase in police powers under proper safeguards is right if we are to be successful in protecting our citizens against sophisticated crime. There will be others who think that these powers go too far. Those are the arguments which we must all follow. On the second point, I cannot give an assurance that I will pluck one part out of the report. First, we must look at the report as a whole. We may decide to bring out some parts of it later.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the findings of the Royal Commission to the effect that the time had passed for feasibility studies into the tape recordings of interviews of suspects, that many of the conceived objections have less validity than was earlier thought and that nothing could do more to speed the process of criminal trial at the same time as protecting the innocent than the speedy introduction of tape-recorded interviews of suspects?

Anyone in my position who is not sensitive to the need to speed up trial procedures would be very unwise. I want to see trials speeded up and shall take account of what my hon. Friend says.

May I deal with the right hon. Gentleman's last point about speeding up trial procedures and his earlier remarks about freedom of the individual? As his Department refuses to give the information, am I right in assuming that instead of hundreds there are thousands of unconvicted persons on remand in prison, while self-confessed and convicted criminals such as Lord Kagan go straight into an open prison? Why cannot these unconvicted people go into an open prison instead of being kept locked up for as long as 18 months without charge or allegation being made against them? Will the Home Secretary give the figures of the thousands of prisoners affected?

I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman that there are certain figures which it would be extravagant—well beyond sensible costs—to produce. The hon. Gentleman has formed a great habit over the years of asking questions that could be answered only at disproportionate cost. He has done it to all Governments for years. When he does it he assumes the answer that he wants to assume. He has no right to pursue that course and I do not intend to play that game with him. His comments about Lord Kagan do not arise from the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedures. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that everyone wants to see shorter periods of remand, but he does not need to wrap it up in a whole lot of rubbish.

While recognising that a decision about a debate on the Royal Commission report is for the Leader of the House, may I ask whether the Secretary of State agrees that a sensible way to proceed would be for us to have—after not too long a delay—a debate, probably on a "take note" motion, so that the House may have an opportunity of expressing provisional views before the Government finally make up their mind on the recommendations in the report?

The hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable proposition. He will realise that that is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If such time could be found—a suitable time, not too soon—I should welcome it.

Although there are many good things in the report, does the Home Secretary realise that its central weakness is that there is no substantial sanction against breaking the rules by the police? Will he consider bringing in some mandatory rule to the effect that the judge should exclude evidence that has been obtained in breach of any rule?

That matter should be carefully considered. I recognise that if the police are to have increased powers, the need for safeguards for citizens is important. These are all parts of the process of achieving a balance which, on reading the report, we all want to achieve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give further consideration to exempting retired pensioners living in their own homes from paying the full television licence fee:

No, Sir. The Government consider that it is better to continue to assist retirement pensioners by benefits in cash which they can spend as they choose rather than by benefits in kind such as concessionary television licences. Any concessionary scheme would make the licensing system more costly and difficult to operate.

Will the Minister accept that that is a disappointing reply, especially to so many of our elderly constituents? Will the Government recognise the justice of the claim made by so many retired pensioners that they should not have to pay the full television licence fee, for reasons which must be obvious to the Minister? Cannot a start be made by reducing the fee for those people by at least a half?

What must be borne in mind is that any concessions to this class of television viewer should be paid for only out of additional costs imposed upon other licence holders. If we were to make a free licence available for all pensioner households the amount involved would be between £155 and £170 million a year. That is about one third of the licence revenue.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is a disappointing reply, especially as the colour TV licence is likely to increase to £50 fairly soon? That figure is well beyond the reach of the average pensioner. Will my hon, and learned Friend look at this matter again to see whether there is any possibility of introducing a scheme whereby old-age pensioners may have a black and white TV licence without charge?

I naturally share my hon. Friend's concern that those who are by far and away the poorer section of the community should have such benefits as the country can afford. However, my hon. Friend knows, equally, the extreme financial stringency which applies to all areas of Government expenditure. I am afraid that it applies here.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that the licence fee will not be increased? Is he aware that, if there is a further increase, pensioners will find it far harder than they already do to meet that cost? Does he accept that either he should allow them a concession or should assure them that the fee will not be increased?

With her experience in this office the hon. Lady knows very well that I could not give that assurance. She knows that what the Government are being asked to do is something that her Government neglected to do.

Will my hon. and Learned Friend consider getting out of all this trouble about the television licence fee by not renewing the BBC franchise when it falls due for renewal and instead making the whole thing subject to advertising revenue? Does he accept that he need not worry about the unpopularity of such a move because the fewer people who watch television the better off the nation will be?

I should be delighted to get out of this trouble, but I think that I should get into more trouble if I advocated the policy enshrined in my hon. Friend's last sentence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the review by Lord Diplock on telephone tapping has yet been completed.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received Lord Diplock's first report on the interception of communications in Great Britain.

Will the Home Secretary agree that telephone tapping is an interference with the freedom of the individual in a democratic society? To that end will he accept that the first report should be published as a matter of urgency, as it is 10 months since the review was first announced, in order to avoid charges of a cover-up? Will he give serious consideration to publishing subsequent Diplock reviews so that the matter may be brought under public scrutiny in the House and those suspicions about telephone tapping may be eradicated by proper and full public scrutiny?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that Lord Diplock's first report will be published shortly. Thereafter, we shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Bearing in mind the value which will undoubtedly attach to the dispassionate review by Lord Diplock, will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that his first function is the protection of the State and that some measure of telephone tapping will remain essential to that end, whatever Government are in power and under whatever circumstances?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

Does the Secretary of State remember that this report and the White Paper published last April related only to the police, Customs and Excise and the security service, which is under his own authority? In view of recent public allegations, can he assure the House that there is no trespassing on the Home Secretary's preserve by any surveillance conducted by a service answerable to the Foreign Secretary?

I set out the position in my previous statements. I have nothing to add.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied withthe current liaison arrangements between the London borough councils and the Metropolitan Police Authority; and if he will make a statement.

The Commissioner is anxious to maintain and develop arrangements for liaison between district commanders and local authorities. In this he has my full support.

Does that mean that the Home Secretary is moving towards agreeing to set up watch committees in London, similar to those elsewhere in the country? Will he reconsider his attitude to what he calls democratic liaison between London Members of Parliament and the Metropolitan Police Authority, who at the moment is Lord Belstead, who is in another place, who is not answerable to this House and who is certainly not elected?

I am sorry to have to disabuse the hon. Gentleman. The police authority is standing here, is answerable to the House, has been elected, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, and is always ready to answer questions from London Members—and they greatly gain thereby.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the wretched report on police and community relations in Lambeth, instigated by Lambeth council, most of the malicious allegations in which are anonymous? Will he accept that in the part of Lambeth that I represent the police are highly regarded and welcomed on the streets and the only regret is that there are not more of them on the streets?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making clear that large numbers of people of all parties—and he mentions particularly his constituency—give great support to the police and are grateful for the way in which they carry out their extremely difficult task, although I do not wish to pretend for one moment that everything is perfect. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis attaches the highest importance to achieving good relations between the police and the community, and, as the House knows well, so do I. It is important to have more police on the streets and the Commissioner has done a great deal to that end. That, in turn, raises problems over effective contact between local police and the communities concerned. There is great need on both sides for more communication and determination to work together. I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot believe that any good is done to that necessary co-operation by publishing a series of anonymous statements under headings like "Army of Occupation".

Can the Home Secretary confirm the news reports to the effect that he has decided to ask police throughout the country to monitor and investigate racialist attacks? Will he accept, if that is so, that we welcome his decision? Does he agree that if the investigation is to be a success in the Metropolitan Police there is need for greater liaison with the boroughs, community relations councils and the groups of black people who are suffering the attacks?

I met representatives of the Joint Committee Against Racial Discrimination yesterday, who put to me their concern about attacks on minority communities—for example, Asian and Jewish communities. I agreed to look into the activities of those who may be responsible. I also undertook to get in touch with chief constables and to consider a suggestion made by the committee to the effect that special units might be set up in police forces to investigate and deal with such problems. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and chief constables are already doing a great deal in that regard. They deserve every encouragement from this House. I should like to add that co-operation is a form of two-way traffic. It applies equally to the police—and they are aware of the fact—the leaders of ethnic minority groups and everyone in the community. Co-operation with the police can be achieved only with the will to co-operate. Attacks such as those in the pamphlet are not a wise way to proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of local government electors in England and Wales who are entitled to vote in respect of more than one entry in the electoral registers.

The information needed to make such an estimate is not available and could be obtained only at very considerable cost.

Will the hon and learned Gentleman confirm that it is an offence for an elector to exercise his franchise more than once in the annual elections for a particular local authority? Would not that basic democratic principle be breached by reintroducing the business vote?

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is an offence to vote more than once in an election for any one authority. However, I do not believe that if the law were changed to restore the business vote there would be a breach. By definition, it would become lawful. However, there are many difficulties and no one has sought to go behind them.

Will the Minister take steps to remove some of the financial difficulties of acquiring the information by altering the electoral registration forms? Does he agree that, if people were asked to declare whether they were registered on more than one constituency or ward boundary register, the information would be readily available?

It is not quite as simple as that. There are 400 separate electoral registers in Great Britain. The concern that the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) is voicing relates to those who are prepared to be dishonest. The only way to get a clear indication of the true position is to have one central register, which we do not have.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about progress towards citizens band radio.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement of Government policy on open channel citizens band radio following the replies received to the consultation document.

In the light of the response to the discussion document, we have been reviewing the possibility of introducing a service on a lower frequency, in addition to one around 930 MHz. We hope to be able to announce our conclusions shortly.

I welcome my hon. Friend's willingness to support my belief that everyone should be able to communicate freely in a free society. May I ask what is his best estimate of when he will authorise CB radio in order to give British industry the best chance of getting into the market and remove the stamp of illegality that is now upon tens of thousands of people who wish to communicate with one another?

I have said that we hope to announce our conclusions shortly and I mean what I say. However, I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date".

Is the Minister aware that there appears to be a tidal wave of opinion in favour of CB radio and that the Government still have the chance to play the part of a surf rider rather than King Canute? What does he mean by "shortly"? Is it not possible to legalise immediately the 930 MH3 band?

I am well aware that there is a strong body of opinion in favour of legalising CB radio, but there is also widespread concern about interference, especially with television. We are giving the matter careful attention. I repeat my assurance that we shall make an announcement as soon as possible. May I add that my hon. Friend has misinterpreted the role of King Canute.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the paper which I sent him and which he kindly commented on represents my views? Will he remember that he has to strike a balance between making CB radio too cheap and easy so that any Tom, Dick or Harry can use it and interfere with other services and not making it too expensive so that it cannot be used by people who will use it responsibly?

I am only too well aware that in this, as in most matters affecting the Home Office, there is need for balanced consideration.

When he makes his announcement shortly, will the Minister bear in mind that it is crucial to the radio industry to be able to manufacture equipment which would not have been possible had the very high frequency wavelength been determined?

I believe that there would be argument about the hon. Gentleman's comment about whether particular types of equipment could be manufactured here. However, one consideration is the capability of the radio industry.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there are a large number of illegal users of the CB frequencies that he says will be considered? Will he immediately announce an amnesty, or at least say that there will be no further investigation and waste of Post Office engineers' time in seeking out illegal users until he has made his statement?

I am not in a position to announce an immediate amnesty.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his statement gives some hope to over 70,000 users of illegal sets? From what the hon. Gentleman has said, in addition to a lower frequency, there will be a frequency of about 930 MHz. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that will be welcomed by those illegally operating who might otherwise persist in defying the Government and continue to use the 27 MHz frequency against their wishes?

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has come round to a proposal that her Government did nothing to support.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the standards for checking the causes of fires in England and Wales were last reviewed.

There are no national standards as such, but police and fire brigade procedures are kept under review in the light of experience.

Although I note that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that a recent press report indicated that a large percentage of fires were the direct result of arson, which not only causes substantial damage to property, but sadly, the tragic deaths of more than 100 people a year? Against that background, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that there is the closest co-operation between the fire service and the police and that the most modern methods of detection are used to discover the real causes of fires, about which we hear so often and so tragically?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the gravity of the incidence of arson. In 1979, 81 people died as a result of fires for which arson was the probable cause. The hon. Gentleman is equally right to draw attention to the need for the fullest co-operation between the police authorities and the fire authorities in determining the cause of fires. The Home Office has acted on the report of a working party that draws attention to this matter. In that regard, there are proposals to improve the syllabus for training fire officers at the fire service technical college.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Guard Dogs Act 1975 so that guard dogs may not be left secured on their own for long periods.

No, Sir. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 already makes it an offence to ill-treat or cause any unnecessary suffering to a captive or domestic animal.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that Act does not deal with the distress that is caused to animals, and that that is a loophole? Will my hon. and learned Friend please think again about the Guard Dogs Act?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the welfare of all animals and of her position in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It would be difficult to make a statutory distinction between distress and unnecessary suffering. It is a matter for the court to consider on the facts of the case. In a particularly bad case, where an animal had been tied up for a very long time it would be open to a court to find that there had been a breach of the Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority Her Majesty's Government attach to the maintenance of Royal Observer Corps observation posts.

We attach great importance to the 870 posts which provide the field reporting element of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation. They are maintained at a high state of readiness and used regularly by the Royal Observer Corps for training, including national and NATO fall-out reporting exercises. Modernisation of communications between the posts and group controls is part of the improvement in home defence announced by my right hon. Friend on 7 August.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that proper public recognition should be given to those volunteers who man the Royal Observer Corps and who play such a vital part in our civil defence arrangements? Should not the Home Office defend the observation posts more vigorously and with less feebleness than was used to defend the Sittingbourne post against other arms of government that want to surround it with gipsy caravans and all the associated paraphernalia?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute that he paid to the Royal Observer Corps. It is important that it should be acknowledged. I know about the case in my hon. Friend's constituency that causes him concern. The Royal Observer Corps post at Sittingbourne was threatened not by gipsies but by the screening of trees that Kent County council initially proposed to put up. At one stage that was thought likely to interfere with the operation of equipment. It was therefore made the subject of an interim objection. Fortunately, that was put right and the Home Office did not feel obliged to continue.

In the recent "Operation Square Leg" exercise were not all the observation posts, on paper, obliterated—along with the majority of the United Kingdom—by "tactical" nuclear weapons that were supposedly dropped on this country during a "tactical" exercise? Is it not part of a most cruel confidence trick to promote the idea that the civil defence corps would have any role in a nuclear war? Is not our best means of defence to get rid of our nuclear weapons, which make us a prime target?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but every single feature of his question was wrong.

Publish the maps.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change has taken place in the number of offences and crimes involving the use of firearms over the past 10 and 15 years, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of the use of firearms in crimes of violence are on record for the last year for which figures are available.

The numbers of serious offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms—including air weapons—were reported to have been used rose from about 1,300 to about 6,550 over the 10 year period 1969 to 1979; a 400 per cent, increase. The percentage increase over the past 15 years is not available, as information was not collected centrally on a comparable basis before 1969. Of the 6,550 such offences recorded in 1979, some 4,250 were offences of violence against the person or of robbery.

Are not those figures disturbing and alarming? Has the Secretary of State been able to identify reasons for this sharp increase in the use of firearms, whether of air guns, pistols or shotguns? Has the right hon. Gentleman any new plans to curb this dangerous threat?

Over the same period there has been a considerable increase in all sorts of crime. These figures must be seen against that background. However, the figures are serious. The secure holding of firearms is important. I have taken steps to that end in conjunction with the British Shooting Sports Council. I believe that they will be effective. We have to consider every method available if we are to ensure that firearms do not get into the wrong hands.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that access to firearms is important, and is relevant to the increase in the use of firearms in crimes of violence? Given the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has announced, is there not a strong case for tightening up the requirements for the issue of shotgun licences, at least to the level that applies in the case of other firearms? Surely that could be done without placing an undue burden on legitimate users of shotguns.

I said that I would review the whole question of firearms and shotgun certificates, and I am doing that. However, these certificates are a matter for the police. It is an important issue and I am sure that the police will pay attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the more firearms are used in the commission of crime, the more the police are forced to take up firearms to maintain the peace? Will my right hon. Friend treat this matter with the utmost seriousness? In particular, will he say what he is doing about replica guns, which are increasingly used in the commission of crime and which should not be available?

As regards my hon. Friend's first point, I accept that that is a very worrying development. In the past, I have spoken to my hon. Friend about that. In the past day or so I have written to my hon. Friend about replica firearms and I have offered to discuss this further with him and with the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) who came to see me on another occasion. I should be very pleased to hold that meeting.

Is it not a fact that in the past few years shotguns in particular have been used in the commission of crimes? Does not a powerful shotgun lobby exist—particularly in Tory areas—which exerts pressure? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about that lobby and the pressure that it exerts?

Those who hold shotguns legally for sporting purposes are not those who are in any way responsible for crimes committed with firearms. That must be said immediately. I have asked the British Shooting Council if it will introduce a voluntary code of practice on the security of firearms in private hands. I am glad to say that at the meeting that it held yesterday, it agreed to that request. That is by far the most sensible and constructive way forward.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to be absolutely fair in this matter. Will he confirm that one of the reasons for the big increase in air weapon offences is that in 1971 the qualifying level for an offence was reduced from £100 to £20? Is he aware that the latest criminal returns, made in 1979, show that the use of shotguns has been halved, from 20 per cent, in 1971 to slightly under 10 per cent, in 1979?

My hon. Friend shares the same anxiety that I have about the use of any firearms in crime. I am sure that he would agree with me that our success—and he has helped me in this—in getting a voluntary code of practice with regard to secure control of firearms has been a very sensible way forward. I thought that in what I said I was being extremely fair to those who use shotguns for sporting purposes, but apparently not all Members of the House thought so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of children at present in prison with their mothers.

Twenty-three on 23 January.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people eminent in child care are very concerned indeed at the possible long-term effects of imprisoning young children with their mothers over a long period of time? Does he not think it advisable, before this practice is allowed to grow, to set up some kind of research into the possible effects on such young children, which has never so far been carried out?

Clearly, this is a matter of serious importance. The prison department has been conducting a review of policy for mother and baby units in consultation with child care experts in the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that this will enable policies to be developed on allocation criteria and the regime and staffing of such units, which will take into account all proper factors.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at any one time about 1,000 dependent children are in care because their mothers are in prison, whereas there are only about 70 places in mother and baby units in prisons? Given the cost and the disruption to families of this kind of imprisonment, will he give an assurance that he will take all possible steps to ensure that mothers are not imprisoned unless it is absolutely essential for the safety of the public?

Whether mothers are sentenced to prison is a matter for the courts. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all the family circumstances are taken into account, but I am afraid that it is not possible for considerations of children to be decisive in every case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England to make its final recommendations following the current review of parliamentary boundaries.

The Boundary Commissions are independent bodies and are not accountable to my right hon. Friend for the time they take to complete their reviews within statutory limits. I understand, however, that the English Commission is likely to have completed its current review of parliamentary constituencies by the end of 1982.

Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that this will allow sufficient time for the recommendations that are implemented to be effective for the next general election in view of the great disparity in the size of constituencies at present?

I would certainly hope so. The English Boundary Commission, which is totally independent of the Government, and rightly so, has a statutory time in which it has to complete its functions. They must be completed by April 1984.

What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's best estimate of the minimum period of time that must elapse between the submission of the commission's report and the holding of any general election on proposals contained in that report?

I do not make estimates on matters which are not my responsibility.

While the Boundary Commission may not be accountable to the Minister, will he point out that it would be advisable to inform the Member of Parliament before it informs the district council and local newspapers of its intention to change boundaries?

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comment will be noted by the chairman of the boundary commission.

Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that when the Government receive the final recommendations of the commission they will take steps to implement those recommendations speedily and thus not follow the disgraceful precedent set by the Labour Party on the last occasion?

There is absolutely no chance whatever of my right hon. Friend following the precedent of 1969, which was regarded as a disgraceful blot on our constitutional history. My right hon. Friend will fulfill his functions as quickly as he properly can.

Is it not a fact that the Government brought a Bill to the House recently for the sole purpose of increasing the Conservative figures at the next election by 15 or 20 seats?

That point was made—and disgracefully made—in the debate on that occasion, and I fully answered it.

asked the Prime Minister when she next proposes to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

I have at present no plans to do so, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has met representatives of the STUC on several occasions and has made it clear that he is prepared to meet them whenever this would be useful.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if she has the courage of her convictions, as she so often tells the House she has, she should meet workers' leaders in Scotland, an area devastated by Government policies? Will she face the music for once, or will she hide in her London bunker while the Tory Reich crumbles and workers fight back, because she leaves them no alternative? That is the message of the Labour and trade union movement.

I have not the slightest doubt that if the Scottish Trades Union Congress wishes to see me, it will ask to do so. I have seen the English Trades Union Congress and the Wales Trades Union Congress.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the STUC that, bad as the Scottish unemployment figures are, the trend in Scotland is better than that in the rest of the United Kingdom? Does she not agree that the prospects for attracting jobs in Scotland would be much enhanced if the Opposition and the STUC would stop talking Scotland down?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What he says about the unemployment trends is correct. Scotland benefits from the enormous oil-related industries, and some parts of Scotland are doing very well. I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to get more jobs there is to preach and practise the virtues of Scotland and not to talk it down.

If the Prime Minister cannot meet the STUC, will she instruct the Secretary of State for Scotland to make it clear categorically to the people of that country that in no circumstances will the youth opportunities programme be used, either in or out of uniform, in conjunction with the Services? Will she also reconsider the money paid to the youth opportunities programme and ensure that at least it gets something more than what is paid in social security insurance?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his first question. I have not refused to see the Scottish Trades Union Congress. So far as I am aware, it has not yet asked to see me. If it does, I shall of course be pleased to see it.

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

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.

Will my right hon. Friend make my birthday today even happier by adding her good wishes to the sale, widely announced today, of British Aerospace shares? Will she draw particular attention to the generous special offers to employees and the preference expressed for small shareholding applications?

I congratulate my hon. Friend and hope that both he and his constituents are happy with the birthday present that he has been given. I hope that his constituents will take up the offer to which he referred. I also hope that we have not raised his future expectation of birthday presents too high, but, we shall do our best to follow that same path in future.

Has the right hon. Lady had a chance to study the serious and dangerous suggestion as some of us see it, that the United States Administration may wish to return to the development of the so-called neutron bomb? Does she not agree that one result, which would be extremely dangerous for everyone in Europe, is that it could lower the nuclear threshold? Does she not think that that should be an over-riding consideration? What steps will the Government now take to try to ensure that these and kindred weapons are never stationed in Europe?

It is clear that that is one of the possibilities which the new United States Administration may want to consider. So far, we have not been asked to look at any new proposal but, at his press conference the United States Defence Secretary said that the allies would be fully consulted before any decision was reached.

Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that the House will be fully consulted before she makes up her mind?

That is not wholly a matter for me, but I have no doubt whatever that the matter will arise in the House on many occasions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave crisis facing the British fishing industry, including the port of Fleetwood? What steps will the Government take to help?

I am very much aware of the grave crisis facing the fishing industry in Fleetwood, as well as other ports in Scotland and England. My colleagues and I briefly considered the matter this morning and agreed that we must now look at both the timing and the level of help to the fishing industry.

Does the Prime Minister accept that people in countries with differing political systems must live together or die together? Will she tell President Reagan that if he wants to relax East-West tensions the use of words such as "cheats", "liars" and "criminals", and the deployment of the neutron bomb, are not the way to go about it, particularly as Russia would no doubt follow suit and introduce the neutron bomb?

I am certain that Russia has as many nuclear weapons as she wishes to have. She has put enormous resources into research and technology for all weapons of destruction in preference to raising the standard of living of her own society. The purpose of the neutron bomb is to attack massive concentrations of armour, which the Warsaw Pact countries have. Therefore, it is unlikely that such weapons would need to be based here.

In the light of what Shirley said to Bill and what Tommy is saying about Mike, may I ask whether any of them has presented my right hon. Friend with any more credible and viable ideas for controlling inflation than the policies that she is already pursuing?

No, but what I have watched seems a strange demonstration of brotherly and sisterly love.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 5 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given.

When the Prime Minister goes to Washington to meet President Reagan, will she impress upon him that the people of this country and the whole of Europe are anxious about the increasing steps being taken towards nuclear weapons? Will she impress upon him the need to consider returning to SALT 2, and perhaps even SALT 3, as a much better way forward than devising yet another horrible weapon which threatens us all?

When I see President Reagan I shall tell him that I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country are anxious to have proper deterrents to the weapons which the Soviet Union possesses in such abundance, and that the first duty of a Government is to defend and protect their own people.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who last week so accurately referred to the immoral earnings of the Labour Party? [Interruption] Is it not a scandal— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes".]—and a denial of democracy that union bosses should be able to wield 90 per cent, of the votes at the Labour Party conference and additional votes through the abuse of the block vote system?

What my hon. Friend has said is true. I am glad that we Conservatives are nobody's creatures.

rose—

Dr. David Owen.

What about me?

I shall take any points of order after questions. I have called the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).

rose—

The Council for Social Diseases.

Now that European theatre nuclear weapons negotiations have just commenced, does not the Prime Minister agree that in her forthcoming visit to Washington she should urge President Reagan to make no decision about the deployment of the neutron bomb, put this whole issue into the European theatre nuclear weapons negotiations and hope that it may be possible to negotiate a substantial reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe?

We are all anxious to reduce the level of battlefield weapons and, indeed, of all armaments. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the problem is that if we agree we must be absolutely certain that all agreements can be effectively monitored; if not we shall lose the essential defence which a government must provide for their people.

Will my right hon. Friend today warn against the continuing damage of the seamen's strike, such as the immense loss of revenue, the loss of British ships to foreign management and ownership and the loss of future employment for British seamen?

I am happy to endorse everything that my right hon. Friend has said. If this strike continues, it will mean fewer jobs for our people and fewer ships flying our flag.

May I press the right hon. Lady on her last reply? Is she not aware that on two or three occasions I have asked the Government to make up their mind to intervene in this dispute? Will she not confirm to the House that the National Union of Seamen has said throughout the dispute that it is ready for the matter to go to arbitration? Will not the Government intervene to help to prevent the damage to which she referred?

Certainly not. It is for the employers and employees to sort out their own problems in their own way. The era is past when everything came to No. 10 Downing Street to be solved.