Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward his proposals for the compilation of a register of those entitled to enter the United Kingdom for settlement as dependants of immigrants already in the United Kingdom.

As we have said on previous occasions, the Government decided that changes in the immigration rules and in nationality law should take priority, and we do not foresee the opportunity for legislation on a register arising in the near future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly unfair to keep the people of this country in ignorance of the total number of people around the world who are entitled to come and settle here legally? Does he not feel that there should be second thoughts on this matter and that the register should be introduced during the next parliamentary Session?

The objective of establishing the scale of potential immigration into this country remains, but we are considering whether there are more economical ways of achieving it.

Does the Minister agree that, since corning to office, the Government have realised that this would be a bureaucratic nightmare, that it would involve a great deal of civil servants' time and that it would be racially discriminatory in its effect as it would deal almost exclusively with people coming from the Indian Subcontinent? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take this opportunity to say that the Government have scrapped the plan? Does he agree that this would be an easy and quick way of giving a little reassurance to the ethnic minorities in this country who feel so threatened by this and other proposals of the Government?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is a fact that the economic and practical considerations of this matter have to be studied carefully.

Is the Minister aware that this type of question has appalling effects on black and Asian people who have a perfect right to live here? When shall we stop calling people immigrants? This is what they find so offensive and what they regard as showing lack of respect to them.

My hon. Friend was entitled to ask that question.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to provide additional means of compensation for victims of violent crime.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme, which was revised and extended in 1979, provides compensation for personal injury directly attributable to violent crime. We have no plans for a further extension.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, in the light of events that have taken place in many of our cities in the last couple of weeks. will he extend the nature of the scheme to cover the violence that has occurred in which many small business men have lost their livelihoods? As the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 will not meet the full cost of replacing those businesses, the cost will have to be borne by the ratepayers. Does he agree that the Exchequer should go some way to meeting some of the costs involved?

The Riot (Damages) Act provides for compensation, subject to certain conditions, to be paid by the police authority out of the police fund to any person whose house, shop or building

"has been injured or destroyed"

"injured, stolen or destroyed"

Will my hon. and learned Friend consider giving further aid to the National Association for Victim Support Schemes—an organisation founded, incidentally, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving)—which uses volunteers to offer immediate assistance to victims?

As my hon. Friend knows, a great deal of very good work is done by the victim support schemes. We think it right to give some, albeit modest, support at the moment to the national association to which some 70 of these voluntary schemes are affiliated. I shall consider what my hon. Friend said. There is no proposal to withdraw the support that we are giving. I hope that we shall in time be able to give more, but I cannot make such a commitment.

Will the Minister reconsider the application and implementation of compensation under the law from the police fund, as it is under financial constraint at the moment? What proposals has the Minister to offset the compensation that would be paid to legitimate claimants from that fund?

The principle always has been that compensation for damage caused through riot has been found from local resources. There has always been a fair amount to be said for that. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), we shall consider what has been said, but at the moment I cannot offer any commitment to extend the basis upon which compensation is paid.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 have to be made within 14 days of the event? In view of the magnitude of the events of the last few days, will he consider extending that period?

The deadlines are always interpreted in a sensible way. I should be surprised if any claim had ever been turned down because it was made within a reasonable period beyond the deadline. I note what my hon. Friend has said. I very much doubt whether in practice it proves to be a problem.

Does the Minister accept that several points raised in the exchanges have shown that many features of the Riot (Damages) Act need to be looked at? Will he give an assurance that all these points will be looked at? In particular, will the Government review the kind of damage in respect of which a claim may be made under the Act, not only the speed with which the claim might be met?

This gives rise not only to an important but to a tragically typical issue. I give the assurance that the matters that the hon. Gentleman has asked us to look at and consider will be considered.

Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement on the application to increase the television licence.

The BBC has not yet made an application to me for an increase in the licence fees. When I announced the last increase on 23 November 1979, I made it clear that the new fees would have to last for at least two years. I have no intention of increasing the fees before that two-year period has expired.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the BBC leads the world in the quality of its television and wireless broadcasting output, but that there is a need for additional financial support if the quality is to be maintained, and that it is wrong that the same licence fee should be charged to a millionaire as to a widowed mother or old-age pensioner? Will he consider the possibility of ensuring that, instead of or in addition to the licence, the BBC gets financial resources by some other method?

I believe that the licence fee is the right method for raising finance for the BBC, and it has been widely supported throughout the House. A free television licence for all pensioner households would cost between £155 million and £170 million a year, and that would make considerable inroads on the money available to the BBC from licence fees.

In coming to a conclusion on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need for some sort of levy when films are shown on television? Is there not the strongest moral and economic case for this, particularly as the Government have on several occasions said that the British film industry—which produces some of the best films in the world—warrants that kind of support?

That matter can be considered, but I still maintain that the financing of the BBC should be done through the licence fee. These matters can come into those discussions.

I appreciate the serious financial difficulties of the BBC, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Opposition would be extremely reluctant to support an increase in the licence fee unless some help could be found for retirement pensioners who rely so heavily upon television and are the least able to pay for any increase?

Yes; but the hon. Lady will also appreciate that the more help we gave at that end, the higher the licence fee would have to be for everybody else.

Secretary of State for the Home Department what institutional arrangements exist for the detection of illegal immigrants.

The Home Office and the police work together to enforce the Immigration Act and to detect people here in breach of it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to implement a successful policy of firmly controlling immigration, an essential prerequisite is that we are successful in finding illegal immigrants and in stopping them coming?

I accept that we have to find illegal entrants to this country. Last year, 1,500 illegal entrants were detected and more than 1,100 were deported.

Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members and trade unions feel that, in spite of representations made to him and to the Secretary of State, the immigration authorities are still carrying out what is effectively a witch hunt against Filipino domestic and catering workers, in an attempt to show that they were illegal entrants when they came here long ago? Will he agree that on this issue it is time to call off the dogs?

Representations have been made to us about the Filipinos. We are fulfilling the policy that we have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the trade unions. Unfortunately, large numbers of Filipinos have been detected, but in dealing with these cases we have exercised our compassionate discretion to a very wide degree.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is any evidence that courts have imposed prison sentences so far in the current year shorter than those imposed during the same period in 1979 and 1980; and what further action he proposes to take to encourage the award of shorter sentences or of alternatives to custodial sentences.

The only national information so far available about sentencing this year relates to prison receptions. Receptions of sentenced prisioners as a whole are up, but those of prisoners sentenced to more than 18 months were appreciably lower in the first four months of 1981 compared with 1980 and slightly lower than in 1979. I continue to support the lead given by the Court of Appeal regarding custodial sentences for less serious offences.

I welcome the extremely modest improvement that has taken place. But does the Home Secretary accept that much more positive action is now necessary? Will he consult as soon as possible the informed organisations to discuss alternative and additional steps which are now urgently required?

I am constantly in touch with all these organisations about non-custodial sentences, whether through the work of the probation service, community service orders or the many other agencies which are trying to deal with offenders not in custody.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prison population now exceeds 44,000 in England and Wales? What steps does he contemplate taking to deal with this alarming situation? What reassurance will he give to the public that persons convicted of rioting, crimes of violence and robbery will continue to receive exemplary sentences?

It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that, since the prison officers' dispute, the prison population has risen substantially and is now more than 44,000. As for the future, I remain of the view that it is important that custodial sentences are imposed for serious offences. Those who need to be given custody for the protection of the public or because of the seriousness of their offences should receive custodial sentences. Equally, I believe that non-custodial sentences may be imposed for less serious offences. In many cases, in the discretion of the courts, a short custodial sentence may be at least as effective as, and in some cases more effective than, a longer one.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the clear and repeated exhortations of successive Home Secretaries and Lord Chancellors to reduce sentence levels have not prevented the prison population from reaching a new record and dangerous level? Given that state of affairs, is it not time for him to introduce legislation to reduce the maximum length of sentences—or must prisoners go on hunger strike to negotiate improvements?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a rational consideration of the ways in which we should decide between custodial sentences for violent and serious offences and non-custodial sentences for others, knowing the very considerable interest that he takes in the subject, I do not think that the example he has given makes either his advocacy or my task any easier.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the various considerations that he put forward are matters for the individual trial judge to consider, and that now is not the right time to erode the independence of the judiciary by introducing legislation automatically to cut the sentences of those serving short terms of imprisonment after they have served one-third of their sentence?

I take my hon. Friend's point. It is important that the discretion of judges and magistrates should not be eroded. Equally, the considerations that put forward in the parole review should be considered rationally by the House and the country. I am asking for a rational consideration of them.

To what level must the prison population rise before the right hon. Gentleman will consider introducing legislation to make some offences non-custodial and reducing the maximum prison sentence for certain other offences, rather than relying on exhortations to the courts, which do not appear to have been successful?

I am surprised that the hon. Lady or anyone who has had responsibilities at the Home Office in the past should make impertinent suggestions about the size of the prison population, because they in their time did absolutely nothing to deal with prison buildings, prison maintenance or, indeed, anything to do with our prisons. It is no good people who did nothing when in power now coming along with ideas. I have said that I am most anxious to deal sensibly with this problem. I have made some proposals, and I am prepared to have them considered. However, I am entitled to say that I am the first Home Secretary for a long time who has made any effort to deal with the problem.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to issue guidance to police divisions on policing methods in conditions of potential racial friction.

I am sure that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is already well aware of the need to ensure that policing methods adopted in various parts of the Metropolitan Police district are appropriate to local conditions.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the police are instructed to enforce the law equally in all parts of the metropolis, regardless of the proportion of ethnic minorities?

That is within the operational discretion of the Commissioner. The answer is "Yes" to the question whether any general directions would ever be given to the Commissioner.

If the Scarman tribunal makes specific recommendations regarding what the question calls

"policing methods in conditions of potential racial friction",

I cannot tell what Lord Scarman will report, but, when he does report, I shall certainly consider most urgently with the Commissioner and with chief constables throughout the country the implications of that report. I am most anxious that we should deal with the problems of policing in many areas by means of that report. I undertake to do that.

Although the recent riots are probably not racial in origin, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time may be coming when the Government must consider the installation of riot police in different uniforms from those of the present police, so that any obloquy occasioned by quelling a riot would not fall on the regular police force?

I very much hope that we can avoid setting up two police forces. I believe that would be a mistake and would lead to great difficulties. On the other hand, I have made it clear—and I was glad that the House as a whole agreed with me—that policemen involved in dealing with riots should be properly protected. I undertook to make sure that protective headgear would be provided. I am glad to say that between 1,700 and 1,800 helmets are now available. Three hundred helmets were used in Manchester last night, and they proved particularly effective. That is a matter of importance.

Does the Home Secretary realise that his original answer to this question was totally inadequate? The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will not change his policing methods simply as a result of the kind of blandishments that have been used in the past. Yet every indication, particularly in Handsworth, where the chief constable of the West Midlands made a change about four years ago, shows that changes in police methods are crucial in getting racial peace and harmony in the area. If that had been done five years ago, we should probably not have had the trouble in Brixton.

I do not accept that for one moment. I have great confidence in the Commissioner. I am entitled to discuss these matters with him when Lord Scarman reports. By so doing, I believe that together we can reach a sensible solution. I do not accept in any way the aspersion on the Commissioner which I think was implied in the hon. Gentleman's question.

In any guidance that my right hon. Friend may send out to anyone, will he invite the elected members of local authorities to avoid at all costs stirring up any more racial difficulties at this moment for the police service? Is he aware that, whatever the causes and whatever role race, unemployment or anything else may play in these tragic circumstances, it does not help if elected members of local police authorities go into areas and suggest that those arrested for breaches of the peace should be released before they are brought before courts?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is enormously important that chief officers of police, in carrying out their operational duties and the operational requirements put upon them, should be absolutely free of political control. I wholly deplore any idea, as would seem to be implied, that political control had been exercised on chief constables. It would be against our constitution and against everything that I understand that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have always felt. The operational control of the police is a matter for the chief constables concerned. I stand firmly by that, and I hope that their officers will be given full support in the difficult tasks that they have to perform at this time.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the provisions of the Vagrancy Act dealing with begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the provisions of the Vagrancy Act dealing with begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the provisions of the Vagrancy Act dealing with begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.

No, Sir. The Select Committee on Home Affairs in its recent report on these provisions recommended that the three principal offences should be retained, at least for the time being. The Government agree with the Select Committee's recommendation.

Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee was divided on the issue? Will he confirm that about 200 people are sent to prison every year for offences that stem directly or indirectly from these provisions in the Vagrancy Act? Is it not time that we had another look at the laws under which some of the most disadvantaged in our society are punished and sent to gaol in this way?

The hon. Member is correct when he says that the Select Committee was divided. However, I note that his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) voted with the majority on nearly every occasion. The fact that a Select Committee is divided does not necessarily make invalid its recommendations. Not many people are sentenced to imprisonment under these provisions. We all look forward to the day when these provisions can be repealed. I agree with the findings of the Select Committee, which supports the views of the police, in particular, who find that there is some value in rare cases in retaining these offences.

Will the Minister confirm that approximately 100 people are sent to prison direct and that a further 100 are sent as a result of failure to pay fines?

That is correct. The figures are about 200 every year. The figures for immediate imprisonment for 1979 are: 15 for sleeping rough, 84 for the begging offence, and about 44 for being on enclosed premises. The enclosed premises offence has little do with vagrancy, as the Select Committee made clear. It has to do with those who enter premises with criminal intent.

Does the Minister accept that the offences of begging and sleeping rough are fundamentally objectionable in that they punish and label as criminals those who are affected by the problems of homelessness and poverty? Will he accept the majority report—the unanimous report—of the Home Office Select Committee and now repeal them, or at least make them non-imprisonable offences?

The Government are prepared to consider the Select Committee's recommendation to take away the power of imprisonment. However, there is a difficult problem here. I adopt the words of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), which were as follows:

"The problem of our society is to deal with behaviour which may not be culpable but which creates a public nuisance where the offender refuses to use social agencies which exist to help him."

Does the Minister of State recollect that just two questions ago the Secretary of State said that he did not want custodial sentences for minor offences? Does he recollect that he has in the Select Committee report a unanimous recommendation that sleeping rough and begging should cease to be offences which carry an imprisonment sentence? Will the Government make up their mind on this matter before next Wednesday evening so that we can have an amendment which does the modest job of making the two offences non-imprisonable?

I think that everyone who pays attention to the problems of penal policy wants to see as few people in custody as is consistent with the proper protection of the public. These matters do not lend themselves to easy or slick solutions. I have said that we shall consider what the Select Committee has recommended. I mean that, but that is all that I am able to say.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to change the functions of coroners' courts.

We have reviewed the coroners' system in the light of public concern about one or two recent inquests. As I said on 1 June in reply to my hon. And learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), my right hon. Friend has already accepted certain recommendations of the Brodrick committee relating to deaths in custody and the selection of coroners' juries. He does not, however, consider that at the present time any further changes are necessary.

Does the Minister accept that coroners are not the right persons to conduct inquiries into killings or deaths with a high degree of political sensitivity? Relevant evidence, including police investigators' reports, is normally withheld, in many recent cases coroners have clearly been biased and verdicts of misadventure are treated as acquittals, as though there had been a trial when in fact there has not. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the most serious cases are heard in the High Court or before an impartial police ombudsman?

I am aware that in one or two recent cases the view has been expressed that the inquest was an unsuitable vehicle, but we must bear in mind that it has a limited function, which is to ascertain the cause of death. It is not its function to attribute blame. There are other methods of inquiry available, including criminal proceedings. It is open to anyone who believes that he is aggrieved by an inquest verdict to appeal to the High Court by or with the authority of the Attorney-General, under the provisions of section 6 of the Coroners Act 1887, for the inquest verdict to be set aside and a fresh inquest ordered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some Conservative Members who will be disappointed with his answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? Does he appreciate that there is a considerable amount of concern about the function of coroners' courts? It is not enough to say that some of the recommendations of the Brodrick committee have been implemented, because nearly all of them have not been implemented. The report of the Brodrick committee is now nearly 10 years old. Will my hon. Friend consider taking rather more drastic action than he is proposing to take?

I believe that the concern that has been expressed has been about one or two cases only. They represent only a minute fraction of the deaths investigated by coroners and the number of inquests held in a year.

Is the Minister aware that if, like me, he had attended the inquest on the New Cross fire he would agree that that inquest did enormous damage to the processes of justice and to race relations? Is he further aware that where serious allegations are being made against the police it is inappropriate that a coroner should preside? Coroners rely heavily upon the police and Co not have the sort of experience that a High Court judge might have, as Lord Scarman is now exhibiting, of conducting proceedings even-handedly? Does he accept that it is more appropriate in those cases that the Home Secretary should have the power to bring in a judge instead of leaving the issues to coroners?

High Court judges already have the powers of coroners. Fundamental changes in the procedure of coroners' courts would be needed to enable judges to act as coroners. Legislation would be required to enable a judge to take over from a coroner who had already opened an inquest, which he usually does within a very short time of the death. I am not satisfied that such changes would be justified. The hon. Gentleman referred to the New Cross inquest. The coroner is an independent judicial officer and I have no authority to comment on the way in which he carries out the duties of his office within the framework of the law.

Does the Minister accept that it is no reflection whatsoever on coroners in general or any particular coroner to suggest that there are some cases where they are not best suited to carry out a politically sensitive or a highly publicised case, and that the consideration that we want the Government to consider is whether one can keep the inquest system but allow the Secretary of State, in those suitable cases, to appoint a judge, perhaps not even a High Court judge, as against a coroner to do exactly the same job that otherwise would be done by the coroner?

Apart from the general principle, there are a number of severe practical problems about following that course. One of those problems would be to decide in which cases the Home Secretary, or whoever it was, would come to such a decision.

Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population in England and Wales on 25 June.

About 44,600.

Is the Minister aware that his reply reveals that the prison population is now at an all-time high? Does he appreciate that because of the lack of work, the lack of association and the overcrowding that exists in our prisons, the prison system could explode into the most appalling violence at any time? When will he start to take note of what prison governors and the Prison Officers Association are saying about drastic reduction in the prison population?

The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the prison population is at, or is nearly at, a record level. It is a serious matter, as my right hon. Friend has made abundantly clear over quite a long time. That is why the Government are considering what ways there may be, consistent with maintaining the proper protection that the public need and deserve, to reduce the prison population. It is a far from easy task. However, we are considering ways in which that can be done. The present level of the prison population represents a potential danger.

Is my hon. and learned Friend able to say what percentage of those now in prison have been in prison before?

I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about that. I do not know whether the figures are held centrally but I expect that they are. I shall write to him, if I may.

Does not this terrifyingly and dangerously high figure confirm that the Home Secretary's desire that shorter sentences should be imposed for non-dangerous offences by means of advice to the courts is not being realised and cannot be realised, partly because the courts should not be expected to act on such advice? Responsibility lies with the House to legislate for shorter sentences or to introduce a public prosecutor system that might take us towards that end. The responsibility lies here with us. When will we act on it?

There are several separate considerations in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, it is not for my right hon. Friend to give advice to the courts and he does not do so. Such advice as has been given to the courts has come from the Lord Chief Justice. It is too early yet to ascertain what effect the judgments in the Court of Appeal in the cases of Upton and Bibi will have. As to whether we go into a system of public prosecutors, much depends on the review of the Royal Commission's recent report and on the opinions that are expressed. That is a separate issue.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions which govern the sale of replica firearms.

There are no specific statutory controls on the sale of replica firearms.

As it was only a few weeks ago that Her Majesty the Queen had such a narrow escape from serious injury, is it not time that the House, with all the co-operation that I think that we would get within the Chamber, brought forward an emergency Bill to cover replica firearms and prevent these weapons being sold and turned into lethal weapons?

It was a most unfortunate incident, but I do not think that we should exaggerate it and pretend that the Queen had a narrow escape from serious injury since, at the time of the incident, the gun that was used could not fire a bullet. It is important to keep the matter in proper perspective. I said that we would examine urgently whether a new Bill on replica firearms should be introduced following the incident at the Trooping the Colour. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) have both agreed that they will consider the possibility of producing such a Bill. I am grateful to them. There are difficulties. For example, there is the problem of differentiating between realistic imitations of lethal weapons—which are serious—and models that are harmless children's toys—which are not. The problem is difficult but I hope that we can make progress. I should not like to exaggerate the seriousness of the position from which we are starting.

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve security at Royal palaces.

The arrangements are kept under continuing review. In consultation with the authorities at Buckingham Palace, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is paying particular attention to the physical security measures there.

Can my right hon. Friend look into the antique security measures in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, which cannot be satisfactory, in view of the ease with which a number of intruders spent the night there recently? Can he see whether electronic surveillance methods which would be manned for 24 hours a day could be adopted there at an early date?

It would be wrong of me to start to express views on the security measures that are made. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that it would be wrong to describe those measures as antique in any way. Proper measures are taken and the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to make sure that they are so taken will be fulfilled.

Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage crimes of violence have increased since 1960.

The total number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1980 was over 500 per cent. higher than the number recorded in 1960. That increase corresponds to an average annual rise in those recorded offences of about 10 per cent. a year. The rate of increase on the more serious offences, such as wounding and endangering life, was rather less—4 per cent. a year.

Is not that one of the most frightening and alarming statistics presented by the Government in recent times? Does the Minister consider that present policies and deterrents are likely to contain or reverse that trend? Has he any plans to reverse the frightening increase in the number of crimes of violence involving the use of firearms?

As my hon. Friend says, that is a deplorable increase. It is a measure of the decline in the respect for law that has taken place over the last 20 years. There is some hope for encouragement in the statistics in that the number of offences of violence against the person recorded in 1980 was only 2 per cent. higher than in 1979, whereas the average over the past 20 years has been an increase of 10 per cent. That slowing down appears to be reflected in the first quarter of this year. We may reasonably suppose that that reflects what we have done in Government to increase the numbers of police and to increase their morale.

Will the Minister tell the house what is the increase in non-violent crimes?

I regret that I cannot do so without notice. I do not doubt that the number has risen—[Interruption.] It would be a great help if, from the Opposition Benches, we had greater support for the efforts of the Government in the last two years to increase respect for the law, to encourage the police and to give them every support in the dangerous task that we ask them to do.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that an increasing proportion of violent and anti-social offences are being committed by juveniles who become the vicious criminals of tomorrow? Is it the Government's intention at an early stage to introduce legislation to give the courts powers to inflict heavy fines on the parents of youngsters convicted of such crimes? Does he not agree that that might make a contribution to making people sit up and take notice that law and order are increasingly in danger?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of parental responsibility for the actions of their children. I believe that that has been increasingly neglected recently. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". We hope at an early stage to introduce legislation that will bring home to parents in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend that they have a real responsibility that they will be made to fulfil.

Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 July.

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.

Will my right hon. Friend be able to consider further today the question of the maintenance of law and order? Does she accept thet, with the bandwagon effect of violence that has continued to spread during this week, it might be necessary for the Government to recognise that the use of water cannon in addition to CS gas might be necessary to prevent the arson, looting and unprecedented attacks on the police recently?

I am wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and his desire fully to support the police and to see that they have every facility available that they need.

They have to, with policies like the right hon. Lady's.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary fully endorsed the action of the use of CS gas on Merseyside. We are now considering what other equipment the police may need. The use of water cannon is certainly not ruled out.

Will the Prime Minister find time to tell us today what is the logic in spending £5,000 million on Trident missiles to protect us against the Russians, who have not as yet smashed one shop window, while our cities are being flattened by gangs of marauding unemployed youths and she is not spending an extra tuppence ha'penny to find work for them?

That is an absurd question for a person who has sat behind a Government who put in hand Chevaline and who, during all of their period of office, believed in an independent nuclear deterrent.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there has been any indication from the Opposition about the level of pay settlements that they regard as compatible with reducing unemployment during the next 12 months, or are they just willing to say that unemployment is bad but they will encourage pay settlements to make it worse?

I have seen no evidence from the Opposition that they wish people to reduce pay settlements as a means of getting more jobs. There is a direct relationship. Higher pay settlements mean fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for the young.

Will the Prime Minister consider today that, however bad they may be, prison conditions in Northern Ireland are considerably superior to those in England and Wales where there is now a record number of prisoners and record overcrowding, with 17,000 prisoners—two and three to a cell which was built for one in Victorian times—who are often locked up for 23 hours a day? Will she now take steps to reduce the prison population and improve conditions, or would she suggest that prisoners in England and Wales should involve themselves in a hunger strike so that they can negotiate with the Government?

The shortage of prison accommodation in Britain has not suddenly come about. The hon. Gentleman's Government were as much responsible for the present state of prison accommodation as are this Government. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the conditions in the Maze are among the best in the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken every possible prudent step to reduce the prison population.

Since, as every hon. Member who has recently visited a country in which there is real and grinding poverty will attest, there is no necessary or convincing correlation between poverty and the rioting and looting that we have had in the last week, should we not seek an explanation for those deplorable events in some of the seditious, sociological claptrap that is passed on in our schools as education?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are many poor societies that are scrupulously honourable in everything they do and would not sink to some of the things that we have seen in Merseyside in recent days. I agree with the leader in the Daily Mirror headlined:

"A spree of naked greed".

"The latest night of mob violence in Liverpool had nothing to do with the city's problems of bad housing and unemployment.

It was a spree of naked greed."

Stupid woman.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady is fully aware that all of us in the House condemn looting and violence in the way in which it has occurred, and we do so in the strongest possible terms. Has she had the chance to study last night's debate on higher education and its relevance to these matters? In the light of this situation, is it the intention of the right hon. Lady and her colleagues to proceed with the proposed reduction in the number of university places, which is an act of barbarism? Will she not at least tell the House and the country that she will put that policy into reverse?

I must take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he suggests that the latest reductions in provision for university education—which total about 3 per cent.—have any relevance to the present situation. Just a few moments ago, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said that crime had increased by about 500 per cent. since 1960. But, equally, university places have increased enormously since that time. We have had the whole of the Robbins expansion. There is just no connection between the two.

Is not the right hon. Lady aware that there are more than 10 engineering places in Japanese universities for every one in Britain? Does she not think that that has some relevance to economic performance? Do the Government really intend to cut 20,000 further places, which will happen under their proposals for dealing with the higher education programme?

The latest programme of the UGC, decided by the UGC, provides for an overall increase in science and technology places. In that respect, the right hon. Gentleman's point is fully met. In addition, there are a considerable number of places in polytechnics, and the polytechnics were meant to take charge of vocational training to a very much greater extent than the universities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people outside the House of Commons feel that we are not paying sufficient attention to the immediate problem of law and order? Some Opposition Members seem to be condoning violence—[Interruption]. To suggest that people are rioting in Liverpool because there are more places for higher students in Japan is quite ridiculous. Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that many people feel that we are not taking seriously enough the question of support for the police? The fact is that once the State loses the monopoly of violence, other people will take it. That is the issue today, and it is felt that the Government are not exhibiting sufficient will to ensure that law and order are maintained.

I hope that no hon. Member, certainly no Conservative Member, either condones or excuses violence on the scale that we have recently seen. It is totally inexcusable and unjustifiable, and I am sure that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members agree.

Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 July.

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

Does the right hon. Lady accept that it was entirely predictable, and predicted, that if society sent half our younger generation straight from school to the dole queue it would cause grave damage to our social fabric? Does she also agree that if society rejects those young people and says that it has no use for them, they are likely to reject society and act in an anti-social way? Unless the Government provide our young people with employment, they will create a situation in which the police will be asked to contain the impossible.

It is because our young people are unemployed that we give priority to the youth opportunities programme. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in the area where violence and rioting has occurred a good deal of it has been carried out by children of school age, some of them aged between 9 and 16. That has nothing whatever to do with the dole queue.—[Interruption.] Of course we try to provide as many jobs as possible, but the history of labour relations in that area does not encourage firms to go there—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but it does not. That is why we must put so much emphasis on the provision of, and increase in, small businesses.

Stupid woman.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the recent breakdown of law and order in some of our cities calls for a more positive reaction than the supply of helmets to the police? Will she consider the reintroduction of corporal punishment for under-18-year-olds for a trial period of three years?

We have no plans to do that. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at all possible means of assistance to the police by way of equipment. We are also looking at any changes in the law that may be necessary. We are also looking at ways of getting compensation as quickly as possible to those whose properties have been gutted and whose businesses have been destroyed.

Does not the right hon. Lady accept that the policies that she is pursuing are ripping away the fabric of our society? Is she aware that she has been protrayed as the biggest vandal in the country in that the Government are regularly mugging the British taxpayer? There was another example of that yesterday in respect of the gas industry. Does not the right hon. Lady see any connection between that and her portrayal of Top Cat—people do watch television?

That is a ridiculous and absurd question. No one is more anxious to get genuine jobs than I am, but nothing is more irritating than people who have jobs striking for more pay—[Interruption.]—knowing full well—[Interruption.]

The right hon. Lady has created a million more unemployed.

I am concerned about unemployed—[Interruption.]—and if hon. Members will listen—[Interruption.]

Order. It is impossible for me to hear the Prime Minister. Hon. Members must listen, even to points that they do not wish to hear.

I shall finish the sentence that I started. Those who are frequently on strike for more pay know full well that, in the absence of increased production, more pay can be given only at the expense of someone else. They are actually pre-empting for themselves the money which could otherwise be used to provide jobs for others. It is Labour Members who do not always wish, in practice, to increase jobs in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the contributions made during questions to her on this subject have been more closely connected with the Warrington by-election—[Interruption.]

Hysterical men, terrified of what is happening. [Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. A right hon. Member is asking a question.

May I repeat what I said? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the contributions made to her during this question session have been more closely related to the Warrington by-election than to any desire on the part of those who have made them to make a positive contribution to a serious and grave problem?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The questions have certainly not been directed towards providing new genuine jobs. That can be done only by providing goods and services at a price that people in this country and overseas will pay. No amount of yowling and scowling will get over that fact.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister attacked on three occasions the people—

Bogus.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he can only raise with me a point of order and not a point that he wishes to register. It must be a point of order connected with "Erskine May", or our Standing Orders, on which I can rule.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter over which you have power. The Prime Minister referred three times to the people of Liverpool. She attacked them—

Order. I know that I did not call the hon. Gentleman earlier in Question Time, but he must take his turn with everybody else.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not care whether you call me or not, but you did not call any hon. Member from Liverpool.

Order. The hon. Gentleman's remark is a very great help and I shall bear it in mind.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I will take the point of order of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I am waiting to see whether it is a genuine point of order. We shall see.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, why have you stopped me every time I have tried to make my point of order?

Order. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. It is because a point of order to me cannot possibly include criticism of another right hon. or hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman's point of order to me must be a point of order and not an attack on anyone else.

May I put this point of order to you, Mr. Speaker? Is it legitimate for a right hon. Member to attack communities and the constituents of other hon. Members without those hon. Members being allowed to say one word in defence of their constituents?

Order. It is clear that my original presumption was correct.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order, Sir Frederick Burden.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I must request the hon. Member to resume his seat. I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden).

Do you agree, Mr. Speaker—

On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I am taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Gillingham. I shall return to the hon. Member for Walton.

Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps there would be less hooliganism on the streets, if there were less frequently—

Order. That is not a point of order for me either.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister attacked the city and people of Liverpool. There are plenty of hon. Members from Liverpool—I am not talking only about myself. Why was not one hon. Member from Liverpool called to refute the Prime Minister's allegations?

The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there are several hon. Members for Liverpool seats. It so happens that I did not call them this afternoon. They had been called earlier when the Liverpool issue had been very much to the fore during questions to the Home Secretary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not represent a Liverpool seat.

I did not call only the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). Other Liverpool Members were called.

On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that a certifiable condition was a debarment from membership of the House. Is there not a case for the House collectively to examine the lunatic utterances of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) both inside and outside the House?

Order. Making a personal attack under the guise of a point of order is very unfair.