asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the proposed capital improvements to Her Majesty's prisons programme for the current financial year.

It would not be practicable to list these. Details of the major projects in the building programme are published each year in the prison department annual report and I shall gladly supply my hon Friend with information about specific projects if he wishes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, as he may be, that there are rumours—as is usual at this time of the year—that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find extra money in the Budget for public works? Since the prison service has been deprived for too long, will my right hon. Friend submit a special claim to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out that money spent on capital works in the prison service can not only have an improving effect on prisoners' rehabilitation and so on, but can prove to be a cost saving, because expenditure on capital works can save revenue expenditure?

In the present financial circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated me very reasonably as regards, prison maintenance, money and new prisons for the future. Therefore, I am doing more than has been done for a long time. However, I agree that a great deal more needs to be done and that much of what has to be done to prevent old prisons from falling down would be extremely cost effective in the long run.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the May committee's estimate that about £720 million would be required solely to maintain an adequate standard for the present prison population? Since such public expenditure is unlikely, will he not agree that a commitment to a radical reduction in the prison population is essential if conditions for both staff and prisoners are not to deteriorate further?

The need to deal with severe overcrowding in the prisons is well known to the House. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that even with measures to reduce overcrowding, if we were to manage that by voluntary means—which I should prefer to see—it would still be necessary to spend large sums of money to maintain existing prisons and to build new prisons for the future. They are complementary features, not opposites.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the building of prisons, because of the time taken in planning and building, is no short-term answer and no short-term solution to the problem of overcrowding in our prisons? Will he consider introducing custody and control orders of the sort recommended by the Younger committee, but extended to adult prisoners so that the Home Secretary could decide how much of a sentence would be spent in custody and how much under the control of the Home Secretary on licence? Does—

Order. It is unreasonable to ask such a long supplementary question. This is not a debate.

I apologise for speaking too long. I merely wanted to say that I want the courts to make the decision about how long a sentence should be served and the Home Secretary to have the decision about the way in which a sentence should be served.

What my hon. and learned Friend has proposed will be considered in the debate, which is bound to continue in the House and outside, about penal reform as it affects the courts and the prisons. I am grateful for what the Lord Chief Justice has said and for the lead that he is giving on voluntary measures aimed at reaching shorter sentences for non-violent offenders. I hope that will continue. Any measures that the House might take in the future should be complementary to the voluntary effort of the Lord Chief Justice, and 1 am anxious to see that we work to that end.

Order. In order to be entirely fair, I must point out that every one of the supplementary questions so far has been long. I hope that we can have shorter supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will seek a report from the Metropolitan Commissioner on the action the police took in respect of the march with placards of a group of Labour hon. Members on 18 February.

I understand that hon. Members who attempted to march to the Department of the Environment were told that their action contravened directions given by the Commissioner to his officers in pursuance of the Sessional Orders of this House and of another place. The hon. Members concerned subsequently made their way in small groups to the Department without incident.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that the street politics of the Left—be it Shirley Williams on the Grunwick picket line or the behaviour referred to in the question—are an ugly manifestation of extremism? Will he deplore the walking graffiti which does so much to encourage violent behaviour?

I understand that the relations between the hon. Members concerned and the police were amicable throughout, although the police officer on the spot may have been placed in an embarrassing and difficult position.

Does the Minister recollect with approval the opinion expressed so gloriously by Lord Denning in 1975, in the Hubbard and Pitt case, when he said that that kind of peaceful demonstration in protest against grievances was part of the historic rights of the British people and that we tampered with that right at our peril?

All such cases depend upon their facts and the exercise of common sense. The great majority of the British people do not have access to the House and the rights of audience in the House, as do Members of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the progress being made with civil defence preparations against nuclear attack.

My right hon. Friend looks forward to speeding up progress in the implementation of the new civil defence programme he announced on 7 August last year. The additional resources to be provided in 1981–82 will enable the pace to quicken.

That is a very complacement reply. Is the Minister aware of the growing unease in the country about the matter? While accepting that local authorities have an important role to play in civil defence, does the Minister realise that the present concern arises from a lack of initiative on the part of the Government in providing information, expertise and, not least—I am glad he mentioned it in his reply—resources? When will the Government take the matter more seriously?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency about this matter. My right hon. Friend will shortly issue guidance to local authorities on the suggested ways in which they should make use of the doubling of the money provided for their use in implementing the programme announced by my right hon. Friend in August last year. This is an important matter. This afternoon my right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of local authority associations.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest contribution to civil defence would be made by a change in the building regulations by which all new houses would have shelters built into them?

I do not think that that would be the greatest contribution that could be made to civil defence. The greatest contribution would be the recognition throughout the country that it is important to guard our people against the effects of radiation in the very unlikely event of nuclear attack.

Why does the Minister not admit that there is no defence agaist a nuclear attack? Why does he not pressurise the Government to spend money in the right direction? Is he aware that this is the International Year of Disabled People? He should put money into that area.

I do not admit it because that is not true. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends evidently do not want the country to be able to protect itself militarily against attack. Now he wishes too deny our people the humanitarian help that would save millions of lives. That is not our understanding of the duty of Government.

Since the public have been asked largely to fend for themselves as best they can in the event of nuclear attack, are they not entitled to be given the full and terrible facts of the consequences of nuclear warfare to enable them to make whatever arrangements they can? Is not the best way to do that to show a Government film on television?

The people of the country are entitled to full information about the consequences of nuclear warfare, which it is the policy of the Government through their nuclear deterrent policy in particular to avoid. The Government have made further information available in publications during the past 18 months and more information will be available in the coming months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals he has for measures to strengthen law and order.

The strength of the police service is at its highest ever and I expect a further increase in London. We shall be giving particular attention to achieving the most effective use of police resources. As soon as possible, I shall announce the Government's conclusions following our review of the law on public order. The Royal Commission on criminal procedure made a number of important proposals covering the investigation and prosecution of offences and its report is under careful consideration.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we are honouring our manifesto commitment to strengthen law and order in view of the rising number of crimes of violence and vandalism?

No one can be satisfied in a world where crime and violent crime of all sorts is greatly on the increase and is encouraged internationally. That is something that every nation must deal with. We have responded by efforts which have ensured a strong police service with a high morale and more bobbies on the beat. We intend to back that with other measures which will do everything possible to protect our citizens.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to ban Saturday's proposed march by the National Front in Lewisham is a welcome decision which everyone in the borough of Lewisham feels has relieved the borough of the sort of destruction that took place on the last occasion? However is he really satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner to put in charge of the investigation of the New Cross fire—which was the cause of the previous march—the policeman who investigated the Confait case and took down confessions which turned out to have absolutely no foundation in fact? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss that matter with the Commissioner, and, if necessary, ask him to reverse his decision?

I regret the necessity for the ban onmarches in the Metropolitan Police area for three weeks until the end of this month. There are difficulties in the banning of marches, as everyone here knows very well. However, there are times when such bans are in the best interests of preventing serious public disorder. When that is the case, it is one's duty to support the police in carrying them through.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the largest growth areas of crime over the last five years has been in burglary and housebreaking, and that, unfortunately, the detection rate here is rather lower than it is in some other areas of serious crime? In view of the great and growing public anxiety, in the Midlands and elsewhere on this issue, will he pay special attention to it and hold consultations with police chiefs?

Certainly. I agree with my hon. Friend that the increase in burglaries is extremely serious. Part of the remedy lies in the work of the police and the successful deterrence which comes from catching those who are at fault. At the same time, we have a great deal of responsibility for going forward with measures of crime prevention. We are backward in that respect. I am seeking to put money into research—from the Home Office point of view—into crime prevention. These have a very important part to play.

Will the Home Secretary consider strengthening law and order by reviewing the circumstances surrounding the case of Mrs. Jan Martin, where erroneous information held on police files appears to have been improperly disclosed to a third party?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Mistakes were made in this case and the Metropolitan Police have acknowledged that. I would wish to discuss the matter further with the Commissioner and other chief officers of police. I regard the mistake as having been a serious matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to arrange for the regular publication of Diplock reviews of telephone tapping.

No. I made clear in my statement on 1 April 1980 that only Lord Diplock's first report would be published. Subsequent reports will cover the detailed operations of the arrangements and will not be published. But Parliament will be informed of findings of a general nature and of any changes made in the arrangements.

Will the Home Secretary accept that the present report does not cover Foreign and Commonwealth interception and National Security Agency of America interception, and is so complacent as to amount to a whitewash? Will he also accept that there is accountability to this House for this serious incursion into the rights of the private citizen, and that regular publication of the Diplock reports would be at least a start in that direction, although no substitute for the Home Secretary's own accountability, because one might see in the publication of the reports a development of perception and scrutiny, even by Lord Diplock?

Lord Diplock's report is certainly important. For those of us who, like myself and my predecessor as Home Secretary, have had to carry that very unenviable task, it shows that we have carried it out conscientiously, as I believe we have, and to the best of our ability. I am glad of that, and I do not accept that the report was a whitewash.

While I welcome the Diplock report may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what steps he is taking to prevent unauthorised telephone tapping and other invasions of privacy? In particular, will he give consideration to taking the Younger report on privacy off its very dusty shelf, where it has lain for about a decade, and having a debate in the House on the whole subject?

With regard to unauthorised tapping, it is for the police to investigate allegations of criminal offences. I note what my hon. Friend has said about the Younger report and other matters. These are among the many matters which properly arise and they will be most carefully considered.

Is the Home Secretary aware that many people on the Labour Benches and elsewhere regard the first Diplock report as wholly inadequate? In very many ways, it arouses more fears than it dispels. Since, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the British Telecommunications Bill enables the House to debate one narrow aspect of telephone tapping, will he agree that it would be a thoroughly good thing if the Government provided time, before the Report stage of that Bill, to debate the general position of telephone tapping—official and unofficial, authorised and private—so that we may know the Government's views on these matters and express our own disquiet?

These are not matters for my decision, as the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to know. If such an opportunity arose I would greatly welcome it because I have a duty to this House to explain exactly the Government's position and, what is more, my own very important position in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the prison population is currently held in open prisons.

On 31 January, just over 10 per cent. of adult male prisoners; and just under 30 per cent. of adult female prisoners.

Does the Minister recall that about 10 years ago the figure of male adult prisoners held in open conditions was 15 per cent., and that during that period the expenditure on the prison service has increased very dramatically? Will he look at the matter again and see whether more resources can be made available for the development of open prisons, which are generally very much more successful than the old eighteenth and nineteenth century prisons in rehabilitating offenders?

That aspect of this very difficult matter will be kept under review. It is important to note that a difference today from 10 years ago is that there is a much greater availability of non-custodial sentences, and that therefore fewer cases are suitable, proportionately, to go to open prisons.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise the effectiveness of hostel arrangements—which come under the same category as open prisons—such as exist at Preston prison within my constituency? Does he recognise that, even allowing for the occasional lapse, it is proving to be a most effective method of assisting long-term prisoners to get back into society at the end of their term?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. In proper cases, the hostels perform a very valuable service. The difficulty is in balancing in each case the need to protect the public with the important need to ensure that somebody, particularly a long-term prisoner, is helped to go back into the open community.

How many prisoners at present held in overcrowed closed prisons could be suitably transferred to open prisons without appreciable risk to the local communities?

That is not a question that is capable of a precise answer. I hope that the answer is"None," because I hope that nobody is held in a closed prison who could suitably be looked after in an open one.

In view of the increasing levels of crime, and to avoid the need to release criminals into the civilian population before their time, is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that he cannot persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote more resources to the construction of prisons, if only for temporary accommodation, and if only for open prisons?

My right hon. Friend has already this afternoon expressed gratitude for the way in which he has been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are very many demands upon the Chancellor, because each of us in his own Department would like to get more money.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations were received by his Department during 1980 in regard to concessionary television licences for elderly or disabled people.

Four hundred and fifty-two, sir.

Will not the Minister agree that injustice arises from serious and bitterly resented anomalies in the current concessionary arrangement? Will he not agree that the evidence shows that a pensioner living in a ground floor flat rightly receives the concession but a pensioner, in exactly the some circumstances and of the same age, living in the flat above can be denied it? Is he aware that many other pensioners living in unsatisfactory housing conditions are also denied the concession?

I know from letters sent to me by hon. Members that this concession would be gratefully received if it could properly be made. In our judgment, it cannot. Any such concession would inevitably impose substantial cost upon other licence holders. This is not something that we believe it is right to do.

In view of some of the dreadful films, purchased at high cost, which are seen on television, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would not be difficult for the BBC and the IBA to consider giving concessionary licence reductions to the disabled, especially in this the International Year of Disabled People?

There are 2 million disabled persons. It is difficult to calculate what would be the cost of a concession to them. It is generally agreed, I believe, that the BBC's revenue should come from the proceeds of licensing. It is impossible to construct sensible and substantial concessions that will not have the effect of adding considerably to the costs on others.

Will not the Minister agree that there are two ways of ending this anomaly? The first is to deprive those who already have the concession and the second is to give the concession to everyone. Why cannot he be generous for once during the International Year of Disabled People and extend the concession to all severely disabled people?

It is easy to be generous with other people's money. There is no intention of withdrawing or extending the concession to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am afraid that it is not possible to extend the concession to other people whom we would like to help but feel certain that we cannot.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the best help this Government can give to retired persons and others is to continue with the fight against inflation, which is having some success?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one would benefit more immediately, and, proportionately to a greater extent, than old age pensioners from the success that is already beginning to become manifest in that fight.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the review of costs relating to firearms certificates; and when the review will be published.

The review of the basis of calculation of firearms fees should be completed in the spring and the results will be reported to the House.

Is the Minister sure that the review has not already been completed? Will he undertake that the details of the review will be made public when it is reported to the House to an extent that will enable those interested to assess the basis on which the calculation has been done? Does he realise how much resentment exists at the prospect that this Government might introduce a further unjustified increase in firearms charges?

When the review is complete the results will be made public. The purpose of the review is to ensure that those who take part in this sport pay the costs of administering its proper control. It is also the purpose to ensure that no costs that are at present attributed to those who take part in the sport are wrongly attributed. We want to get at the facts to see that a fair arrangement is made.

In view of the fact that firearms fees have gone up by over 1,000 per cent. in the last seven years, will my hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that, should the review highlight specific wasteful practices, these will be eliminated at the first opportunity?

1 feel certain that this assurance can be given, so far as the elimination of any wasteful practices lie within the control of the Government. We have demonstrated our good faith by making only an interim award. In view of the representations that have been made we shall have to see what the review throws up and try to arrive at a sensible solution in the light of it.

Does not the Minister agree that many criminals, especially young criminals, who have used shotguns in recent crimes of violence would have found much more difficulty gaining access to those arms had the conditions been as stringent as those applying to other firearms? Is there not a strong case for taking this factor into account and making access to shotguns more difficult than at present?

My right hon. Friend is not persuaded that further controls on shotguns would have a significant effect on the level of crime. People who pay attention to legal restrictions are not in the main those who use firearms for the purposes of crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his study of racialist organisations in the United Kingdom.

The study will gather evidence not only on the activities of racialist organisations but, in particular, on the incidence of alleged attacks by members of any one racial group on another. It must be quick, but it must also be thorough. My officials are, therefore, arranging for a survey of the incidence of alleged attacks to be conducted in a number of police areas, and will also visit these areas to obtain the view of the police, local authorities and the ethnic minority communities. I cannot yet give an exact date, but I shall report the outcome to the House as soon as possible.

I welcome and applaud my right hon. Friend's initiative. Will his inquiry also cover the role of racialist publications such as Spearhead, Bulldog and a nasty little paper called Choice which pander to ignorance and prejudice and promote the kind of racialism and anti-Semitism that is now disfiguring our country?

What about the black publications?

We shall look at publications of allsorts, from wherever they come.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the people of Ealing-Southall for his action in ordering this probe. Will he consider ordering a wider examination of publications and a deep probe into the heart of the organisations that base themselves on the barbarous extermination policies of the Nazis of Germany?

All these matters must be properly and carefully looked at.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake that, whenever he bans a march, whether a march of Labour right hon. and hon. Members or of racialist organisations—

The National Front.

—or any march, he will publish the evidence that supports the application to him by the police so that the public may be satisfied that the ban is being made on the grounds of public order and not on the grounds of dislike of the political beliefs expressed?

The Public Order Act lays down clearly that a chief officer of police cannot apply to me for a ban unless it is clear that the march, if it took place, might lead to grave public disorder. That must be a matter for decision based on the view on the ground. It cannot always be a matter of clear evidence. Those are the provisions of the Act, which will be rigidly adhered to.

May I offer the Home Secretary the support and congratulations of the Labour Benches on the prohibition of marchers in the Metropolitan area? The march which has been prevented was a squalid affair, even by the sordid standards of the National Front. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary was right to behave in the way that he did.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remark. I believe that there may be some misunderstanding. Under the Public Order Act, as it stands, neither the police in their application nor I in giving assent to it, can pick and choose in a police area. If we have a ban, it has to apply throughout the whole of the Metropolitan Police area. That is so under the Act. I must also say to those who might like to choose a particular area that I do not think that, even if this was possible, it would be satisfactory because it would be possible to put the march in an area close at hand to the one where the trouble might lie. While I do not like bans I believe that, if there is a danger of grave public disorder and disadvantage to the many people who wish to live a peaceful life in an area, it is the duty of the Government and the House to make a ban in such instances.

Can my right hon. Friend think of anything more overtly racist and criminal, or a clearer demonstration of a breakdown in public order, than the behaviour of the young blacks in the march through Southwark on Monday, when they broke into and damaged shops, terrorised the white population and shouted objectionable slogans about the monarchy to try to provoke the police? Will he not recognise that he has to be seen as being completely even-handed or else he will simply add to the very discontent that gives rise to the organisations that Labour Members find so objectionable?

There were various features of the march on Monday that distressed us all. It is only fair to say that it distressed some of those who organised the march. It is important to say that too. It was extremely distressing. I agree that even-handedness is crucial, and I have been totally even-handed in my response to the application from the police for a ban on all marches throughout the whole of the Metropolitan Police area for three weeks. I note that some Labour Members appear not to like that. They cannot accuse me of not being even-handed because that ban will apply to every march.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the dislike of these organisations is not confined to Labour Members, as suggested by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark). No doubt the House will wish well the study that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking and will ask him to include the effect of marches on the incitement to racial violence in cities outside London, such as Leicester—where marches are planned—and to consider whether the law should be changed to strengthen the powers of the Home Office and the police in banning such marches in circumstances other than those carefully explained by the right hon. Gentleman.

When we publish the review of public order affairs there will be an opportunity for the House to consider how marches should be dealt with. There appears always to be a desire to consider these attacks purely on the basis of colour. That is not right. There are other ethnic minorities—I mention the Jews—that feel threatened and are worried by some of the developments. They are as much entitled as those of every colour, race and creed in Britain to the proper protection of our society. It is important to say that. We are a tolerant society. I believe that the House is determined to ensure that we continue to be such a society.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ensure that the Commission for Racial Equality is balanced in its representation of all ethnic communities, including the ethnic majority.

Commissioners are appointed not as representatives of particular ethnic groups but for their experience in those walks of life which are relevant to the work of the commission.

If the Commission for Racial Equality is to remain in existence, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be more effective if it were more even-handed in its activities and did not appear as a pressure group, paid for out of taxpayers' money, looking after the vested interests of one part of the community only, and against the interests of the vast majority of people who have to pay for it through taxation?

I do not accept that the commission appears solely in the guise of a pressure group concerned with one section of the community. It is obvious that as part of its responsibilities it has to ensure that the views of the ethnic minorities are understood and their problems dealt with.

Was not the point of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that a number of members of the commission were sacked precipitately by the Government and Conservative nominees put in their place? Is it not now time to consider whether the CRE should devote itself completely to enforcement of the law against racial discrimination, and give the rest of its activities to local authorities?

It is untrue to say that members of the CRE were sacked precipitately, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Certain members left at the conclusion of their term of office, which applies to any body of this sort. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the issue was debated fully at the time that the commission was set up. Experience so far has not led us firmly to the conclusion that there should be two bodies rather than one.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Charities Act 1960 so as to relax the restrictions on the use of the money available in a number of ancient local charities.

The Government have at present no plans to introduce legislation for this purpose.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these charities, collectively, are trustees for sums running into not thousands, but millions, of pounds, and that those moneys could be used far more productively?

I am aware that there has been much discussion about the way in which charity money is spent. The present system for assessing the purposes of a charity is working satisfactorily.

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

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, and shall then be leaving for a visit to Northern Ireland.

Does the right hon. Lady recall that on 24 April 1979, while electioneering in Halifax, she held up two bags, a red bag and a blue bag, indicating how many groceries could be bought for £1? Will she, as a well-known housewife and shopper, tell us how much it would cost to buy the red bag now?

I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that after the same number of months in power the level of inflation is very considerably below what it was after 21 months of the Labour Government.

Will the right hon. Lady have time today to read the report, published this morning of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the subject of monetary policy? Is she aware that the report records that of its distinguished witnesses—

Reading.

:Reading.

I have noted what the report states. Is the right hon. Lady aware that those who advocated a mixture of incomes policy, sound financial control, a mixture of fiscal control and control of the money supply were the most convincing?

I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had some difficulty with his supplementary question. I listened to the broadcast of the Chairman of the Select Committee at lunch time, and I thought it excellent.

Will my right hon. Friend, in her travels this evening, be able to take a little time to read the NEDC report on energy prices? In preparing the Government's response, will she take on board the representations of industry that have been made for many months—namely, that British industry wants to have a marginal competitive advantage over its Continental competitors rather than be at a disadvantage?

I have quickly looked at the NEDC' report on energy prices. I noted that it pointed out that 95 per cent. of companies get their electricity at price levels comparable with those on the Continent, but for very big electricity users there is a big difference. Clearly we must look into this as a matter of urgency and report our decision to the House quickly.

When the right hon. Lady goes to Northern Ireland this evening, will she tell them the unemployment figure in Northern Ireland today compared with what it was when she assumed office, and will she tell them how sorry she is?

With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, yes, I am extremely sorry for the very high unemployment in Northern Ireland. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that both Governments have put a very great deal of money into Northern Ireland. The real answer is to try to create jobs that will stand on their own and not, as in the past, jobs that require very heavy subsidies to keep them in existence.

In a sense, I suppose that the right hon. Lady will confirm to us that she will be announcing another U-turn in Northern Ireland. In the light of the fact that she refused to receive a deputation from pensioners yesterday, and in the light also of the fact that it was revealed in the House yesterday that the overseas aid budget of this country has fallen to the lowest on record, will she tell us what text she chose for the sermon that she preached in church yesterday?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question on Northern Ireland, I shall, of course, be repeating and emphasising my personal commitment to the guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland, which is enshrined in law in this country. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about pensioners, I usually see delegations of pensioners in my own constituency. I stress that the Government have kept the pension slightly ahead of the rise in the cost of living, and our first increase actually provided an additional amount to make up for the shortfall of the previous Government. I stress also that the amount available for help with fuel for old people and for those with young families who are on family income supplement is a record. The amount available for overseas aid this year is £961 million.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that employees in Lambeth council have been delaying applications from council house tenants to buy their council houses? What steps does she suggest can be taken to ensure that the rights given by Parliament to tenants in Lambeth are upheld and the tenants are not held to ransom by the Lambeth mob?

Lambeth is one of the 16 Labour authorities which have been delaying applications from council tenants who wish to purchase their own homes. We have reserve powers to enable those tenants to have their rights at law. We shall not hesitate to use them if need be. If we have to use them, it will be a total condemnation of Labour authorities and of the Labour Party for refusing to operate the law to give tenants their legitimate rights.

Reverting to the aid programme, will the right hon. Lady read the report of the debate that took place in the House late last night in which the Minister, under pressure, steadfastly refused to confirm that the aid figure current in 1980 was ·34 of 1 per cent. of GNP? Will she deny or confirm that? If it is true, does she realise that it is an absolute disgrace to the standards about which she was preaching at the pulpit yesterday?

Handout.

I think that the aid for this year is much lower. There is a technical reason which was given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in an oral reply the other day. The reason is that the replenishment of the World Bank is not provided for in that figure because of the hold-up of the agreement on it. The amount of money is there, but it does not actually come into this year, but, of course, it will be given for that purpose.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council has just agreed to have no increase in its rate? Will she congratulate that council, and the chairman in particular, on that achievement? Does she agree that it demonstrates remarkably good housekeeping, coupled with a sensible reaction to the rate support grant?

I am only too happy to congratulate Wiltshire county council, as I would congratulate all authorities which act as proper trustees of the public's money and spend it as carefully as, or rather more carefully than, they would their own.

Will the Prime Minister say how she is looking after the public purse when Conservative-controlled authorities such as Merseyside county council are authorising a reduced amount of police overtime in an area in which, in January, the number of crimes rose by 12 per cent.? How does it square with the Government's manifesto commitment if policemen are taken off the beat in an area where there is massive crime?

I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that recruitment and the numbers in the police force have never been higher. Indeed, there are 6,000 more policemen in the police forces in England, Scotland and Wales than there were when we came to power, and that is very good news.

Will my right hon. Friend seek the earliest opportunity to make plain to any who may still be in doubt that any dealings with the Irish Republic, whether on defence or any other matter, proceed from the basis and assumption of the inviolability of the Union?

Any dealings or discussions with the Irish Republic are in the present constitutional framework. The guarantee is in the 1973 Act. It is the law of the land and we are all committed to it.

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

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

Has the Prime Minister had time today to look at the CBI report published this morning? Does she agree with the report's conclusions that unemployment will rise beyond 3 million unless there is a significant change in Government policy, including an expansion to the extent of £6,000 million?

I have had a quick look at the CBI discussion paper. I can only say that there is some very good and interesting stuff in it. I notice that the CBI points out that it would like extra capital expenditure, but that that must be paid for by reduced current expenditure and the sale of public assets. That seems an admirable way of balancing the books. I shall be only too happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman's proposals for reductions in current expenditure.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that British Rail was wrong to dismiss the three British railwaymen who refused to join a union? Does she agree that that decision will have profound consequences for all closed shop legislation? In particular, does she agree that the Sandwell local authority should now reinstate Miss Joanna Harris because she, too, was clearly dismissed against the law?

I understand that the European Court has not pronounced. I think that the report in the papers was mistaken. I think that they reported the result of the Commission. That was referred to the European Court. But I make it absolutely clear that the Conservative Party has always thoroughly opposed the legislation passed by the Labour Government, from which this action arises. We made very considerable changes, and I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend said about the case of Miss Joanna Harris of Sandwell.

Has the Prime Minister had time to re-read her speech of yesterday? If she has, is the interpretation of that speech that those who accept and support her Government's economic policy are somehow exercising a Christian virtue and that, by implication, those who do not are non-Christians? If that is the interpretation, is that the disgraceful depth to which the Prime Minister has sunk in an effort to defend her tattered economic policy?

As a matter of fact, I have not had time to re-read it. Nor do I re-read my own speeches after they have been delivered. I usually have too much to do. I point out that if the hon. Gentleman had read the speech fully and accurately he would have observed that in that particular sentence in which I set out my own philosophy, I said:

"I believe it is a philosophy which rests on Christian assumptions"—

Heathen.

Opposition Members are very little different from the Young Communists who were in the church yesterday. I am very glad that the Young Communists support that lot instead of this lot.

"I believe it is a philosophy which rests on Christian assumptions, although I fully recognise that some Christians would have a different view."

In the light of recent events in the West Indies, and the attempted blackmail of our cricket team, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Gleneagles agreement is being used by countries for their own political vindictiveness? Will she consider scrapping the agreement at the next Commonwealth conference?

I agree that the Gleneagles agreement was not applicable to that case in any way. It was a case of a person holding a British passport going to the West Indies. Therefore, the agreement was not applicable—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not answering from this Dispatch Box—nor do I believe that he ever will. My advice is that the Gleneagles agreement was not applicable. If he reads the agreement he will find that that is the case.