asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reforms he proposes to improve the system of complaints against the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish a White Paper on reform of the police complaints procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet arrived at a decision regarding the recommendations in the Scarman report of an independent element in the police complaints procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the creation of a wholly independent system of investigation of complaints against the police; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are now considering the recommendations in the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on police complaints procedures, published on 9 June. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as practicable.

rose—

Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but, during his deliberations, will he bear in mind that in October 1974 the Conservative Party election manifesto stated that we would bring into effect an independent element on complaints against the police? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a widespread view throughout the country that that is necessary?

Most certainly. Since that date the Labour Government introduced a Bill purporting to do much the same, but that measure has been found to be unsatisfactory.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept Lord Seaman's view that anything short of an independent system of investigation will be regarded as little more than cosmetic and will do nothing to restore public confidence? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, in the absence of a Crown prosecutor system, an independent assessor will overcome none of the present problems arising from the police investigating themselves, such as a secret police report not shown to the complainant and the Director of Public Prosecutions not having direct access to the complainant? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that only an independent ombudsman will fully overcome those constraints?

The Select Committee on Home Affairs looked at all these matters, and the majority report did not agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions.

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is real worry among the population on the question of the police examining themselves? Most people believe that real democracy demands that the general public should have their representatives assisting in any complaints procedure. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that was at one stage accepted by the Police Federation and later withdrawn?

I agreed to consider the Select Committee's report. Again, the majority report does not wholly accord with the hon. Gentleman's views. I also agreed to consult all the police organisations. When I have done that and fully considered the report, I shall bring proposals to the House.

Is the Home Secretary aware that it is in the interests of the police that there should be a completely independent system for inquiring into complaints? In the light of the revelations now appearing about corruption in the highest levels of the police, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital for public confidence to have a completely independent system to deal with complaints against the police?

On what is best for the police, it must be remembered that it is also right that chief constables should have the right to deal with any problems of discipline among their own officers. Otherwise, the much vaunted accountability of chief officers, which is very important, would simply not be there. There are serious complaints, but, in view of the vast number of contacts satisfactorily carried out between the police and the public, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make too much of this matter.

I welcome the possibility of a new independent authority to deal with complaints against the police, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is no one more able than the police themselves to investigate all allegations of misconduct, whether against members of the public or of the police? Moreover, does my right hon. Friend agree that to restrict the police in this duty would be to insult their general and high reputation for fairness and impartiality?

We shall have to consider all these matters, but I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for underlining the point that I made. In view of the amount of contact that there is between the police and the public, it is remarkable how much support there is for the police and how few complaints there are.

Does the Home Secretary accept that to remove the police from potential allegations of partiality and to restore public confidence in them it will be necessary to implement a totally independent system of investigating the police, as recommended in the minority report of the Select Committee signed by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)? That minority report, not the majority report to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, gained overwhelming support in the media and in the country as a whole.

The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap that perhaps he might accuse me of falling into—namely, reading only those things that suit one's case. If so, he has not read those newspapers that did not agree with him. There is always an opportunity to take such a selective approach. The hon. Gentleman talked about restoring public confidence in the police. I very much resent the word "restore". There is already a large measure of public confidence in the police.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that events such as next week's proposed rail strike are likely to increase to a dangerous level the number of complaints against the police? Will he consider easing the parking restrictions in central London and elsewhere to allow the commercial life of the capital to continue?

That matter does not arise on this question. If, alas and unfortunately, there is industrial disruption next week, matters such as those that my hon. Friend has in mind will be carefully considered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there has been any increase in acts of terrorism within the Metropolitan Police area over the last 10 years.

There does not appear to have been an increase in crimes connected with terrorism in this period.

Has my right hon. Friend any evidence, as has been suggested in the press, that a number of embassies in London have assisted a certain number of terrorists, both actively and passively? If so, what measures can he take in response to complaints against embassies for abusing their privileges?

I have not read the evidence referred to by my hon. Friend. I should have to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the charge on public funds of the deployment of the Metropolitan Police during the recent visit of His Holiness the Pope.

Additional police costs of the order of £290,000 were incurred by the Metropolitan Police as a result of the visit. The additional cost of civilian support services has yet to be quantified. The Roman Catholic Church will be charged for the policing of events which took place on private property.

I appreciate that these are substantial funds—I speak as an inner London ratepayer twice over—but does my hon. and learned Friend understand that this was one of the most remarkable visits that the capital has ever received? It was greatly uplifting and enlightening and was welcomed by a large number of people, not only members of the Roman Catholic Church or, indeed, any church at all.

My impression is that the Pope's visit was widely regarded throughout the country as having been a very good thing indeed.

I played a minute part in raising funds towards the personal security of the Pope during his visit. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many Catholics would not wish there to be a heavy charge on general ratepayers as a result of this pastoral visit? However, this seems as worthy an expenditure of public funds as the expense of controlling CND and other such demonstrations.

I think that my hon. Friend's wish will be accommodated in accordance with the usual arrangements that apply in these respects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make his decision on the future of Moor Court open prison, Oakamoor.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make a final decision soon.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Moor Court has been a model open prison? Is he further aware that past and present prisoners, the staff and the people who live in the area are strongly opposed to the closure of that prison? Will he give full weight to that opposition before a final decision is reached?

Yes. My right hon. Friend is considering the representations that have been made to him by the various staff associations and the Prison Officers Association. He will certainly take into account the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred, and he hopes to make an early decision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) on 8 June, Official Report, c. 19, he will break down the numbers of immigrants who have taken advantage of schemes for assisted repatriation in each of the past five years by age group.

We regret that a detailed breakdown of the age groups of those who have received assistance with repatriation expenses could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but we understand that the majority of those assisted are either approaching or have attained pensionable age.

Like many hon. Members, my right hon. Friend must be aware that many of these people, particularly West Indians, especially as they near pensionable age, want to go home to the land of their origin to see out their retirement. For humanitarian reasons, if for no other, will he try to ensure that the resettlement allowances available to such people are increased?

I am sure that many West Indians dream of going to the West Indies, just as many English people do, but I do not think that hard evidence bears out the claim that there is a large demand for repatriation to the West Indies. I do not believe that a policy of encouraging repatriation would help race relations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that under both Tory and Labour Governments there is no question of the mass repatriation of former immigrants who are working so hard and are such an asset to the British economy? Will he try to cut across the small enclave in his party that persistently pushes questions of this kind, which injure certain people in Northampton just as much as they injure people in my constituency?

I think that I have made our views on this subject quite clear.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the alteration of some of the conditions on which help is available for those who wish to return to their country particularly the condition that they must be going to a job? If such people have no job here, they are perhaps keen to go back to sit in the sun. Is it not possible to allow them to do so?

If my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific point of that kind, I should be willing to consider it. At present, we have no plans to change the existing system.

The Minister's views on this matter will be welcomed. He does a great deal to assist race relations when he refutes the kind of allegations made by his hon. Friends. Does he accept that everyone in the country, from the West Indies or wherever, wishes to see a reversal of the Government's economic policies so that the aspirations of their children in terms of jobs can be satisfied? Getting rid of that problem to the West Indies will do nothing to solve our race relations problems.

One of the things that strikes me about many members of our ethnic minorities is their economic good sense. Like us, they believe that Britain needs to put its economic house in order and that, when that happens, everyone, including the ethnic minorities, will gain greatly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with arrangements to discourage the evasion of payment of television licences.

We are concerned at the extent of evasion of television licence fees and would like to see it reduced. In the circumstances we consider that the measures to discourage evasion are necessary and appropriate. They are kept under review.

I agree with my right hon. Friend, but will he confirm that the latest estimates suggest that 1·2 million people evade the payment of the television licence fee and that that probably represents a loss to the Exchequer in excess of £40 million? Will he therefore consider additional measures—for example, declaratory statements on tax and other official returns?

I confirm the figures that my hon. Friend has given. They represent a serious problem. We pursue a number of different measures in our endeavours to deal with this problem, but we would think carefully about any new measures that are put forward. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's suggestion would be an appropriate use of tax information, but I am prepared to consider any ideas that are put forward.

Does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the number of people who are not paying for television licences because they are expressing dissatisfaction with the BBC and some of its programmes, especially the "Panorama" programme, which, on the day that Port Stanley was freed, seemed to do nothing but carp and criticise rather than praise the outstanding bravery of our Service men?

I know that from time to time many people are dissatisfied with BBC programmes, but not paying licence fees is a wholly inappropriate way of demonstrating disapproval.

How many people who do not pay for licences are pensioners who cannot afford to do so because of increased standing charges and licence fees?

One cannot give a breakdown of those who do not pay their licence fees. I should be surprised if there were large numbers of pensioners among them. The retail price index reflects increases in the cost of television licences. It also reflects annual increases in the retirement pension.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest period of time a person currently in prison has been on remand in custody; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the number of persons held on remand in custody.

The first part of the question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. The size of the remand population of prisons depends on the volume of prosecutions where remand in custody may be justified and on the time that cases take to come to trial. Several initiatives to reduce waiting times have been taken.

Why could the first part of the question be answered only at disproportionate cost when the hon. and learned Gentleman has told me that two people in prison have been on remand for more than two years? Surely one needs only to know which of the two has been waiting the longest. Does he agree that that appallingly inadequate answer disguises the fact that 117 prisoners have been in custody on remand in the most appalling conditions for between 18 months and two years? Does he agree that that is a serious and indefensible blot on our criminal justice system?

It is regrettable when people must wait in custody for anything like the time that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The question that was answered on 27 May was more specific and capable of being answered without disproportionate cost. That is not so with this question.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I spent the morning in Wormwood Scrubs and that examining the provision of education there was a salutory experience? I found the provision of education for prisoners on remand to be low—indeed, almost non-existent.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting observation, but he must ask a question.

Will my hon. and learned Friend examine the question of education for prisoners on remand, especially those who are on remand for a long time?

I welcome my hon. Friend back. I acknowledge that education is one of the services that are impeded by the present overcrowding in remand prisons. My right hon. Friend's firm intention is to do everything in his power to reduce overcrowding.

What is the objection to adopting the Scottish system and specifying the period within which a person on remand must be brought to trial?

The objections were set out fully when the matter was debated in Committee and on Report of the Criminal Justice Bill. That system would make little difference here. When the delay is not shown to be the fault of the prosecution, the 110-day rule is waived.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the entire prison population seems to want to come and live in Maidstone? Day by day and week by week I receive letters from prisoners who want to be moved to Maidstone, because Kent is a nice area. Is that plethora of letters exceptional, or do others want to go to other prisons?

My right hon. Friend cannot be responsible for the consequences of my hon. Friend's popularity as Member of Parliament for Maidstone. I am sorry that he is to retire. Maidstone is a training prison. The regime of a training prison is in many respects much more attractive to inmates than that of other prisons.

Will the Minister take steps to require prison authorities to ensure that administrative convenience is not placed above the interests of justice? Will he also ensure that, when a judge recommends that a prisoner should not be transferred prior to his trial so that he can be properly represented in the week before his trial, that recommendation will be adhered to?

I am sure that it is the desire of all who are concerned with these difficult matters to do all that is practicable to ensure that the interests of justice are served.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has so far been made in setting up community liaison groups as recommended in the Scarman report.

My right hon. Friend has issued guidance on procedure and best practice for local consultation arrangements between the community and the police. We have been encouraged by the good work already being done in many places. We are sure that chief officers and police authorities and the Commissioner and boroughs and districts in London will build on this in the light of the guidance. It will be important to develop arrangements suited to each area.

I am grateful for and somewhat encouraged by the Minister's reply. How many liaison groups have been set up as a result of the anxiety of minority communities that they should have proper and good relationships with the police?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman derives some encouragement from the way in which matters are developing. He is right to do so, although some problems lie ahead. I cannot give an exact figure, but we are witnessing something important taking place. It will develop.

Does the Minister accept that guidelines and good will are not sufficient to ensure that liaison committees are successful? I remind him of the experience of Lambeth, where a consultative group was set up as a result of his and the Secretary of State's initiative. The problem there is now one of funds. Is he aware that the amount that the Home Office is willing to allow for the minimal running costs of that liaison committee is less than what the group now believes is necessary? Will he be sympathetic towards the request for more money—that request may have arrived already—to ensure that the community liaison group in the key area of Brixton works?

I accept that guidance and good will are not everything. Nevertheless, they are an important start. Funding for the Lambeth group is now being carefully discussed. I am sure that it will be resolved correctly.

In ancient, civilised, tolerant and law-abiding England, are the special new types of groups strictly necessary? May there not be a danger of their becoming hotbeds for malcontents? Does not everybody want to be treated the same and to have the law applied equally?

Ancient, tolerant and civilised England has a long tradition of policing by consent. It is one of the marks of our society. If we must think about developing new ways of implementing that policy, it is right to do so. What is happening now will not in any way undermine our tradition.

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State would not regard it as in keeping with the guidance that he has issued on the subject if any local authority in the London area endeavoured to exclude Members of Parliament from the groups, because of the constitutional position in London, or to exercise a political veto over elected representatives of a party to which the council did not adhere?

We do not envisage local authorities exercising political vetoes to shape adversely the pattern of consultation groups.

Is there already a liaison arrangement between the 32 London boroughs and their local police stations? If so, is that a satisfactory basis upon which to build the liaison arrangements?

I think that there is already such a liaison arrangement. We believe that the London boroughs, working together, can help us to get consultation right in London.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered giving guidance to chief officers of police on the procedures which should be followed in connection with resident informants held in custody by them.

This is under active consideration.

Is the Home Secretary really satisfied with the way in which supergrasses—a word that I was not allowed to use in the main question—

Order. What is out of order in the Table Office is out of order here.

Is the Home Secretary aware that as the word "supergrass" is out of order I shall have to use the term "resident informant"? Is he satisfied with the use being made by the Metropolitan Police and other police forces of this method of obtaining convictions in court? Is he further aware that one supergrass—I am sorry, I mean one resident informant—has recently escaped from the custody of the Metropolitan Police? Is he satisfied that that did not take place with police collusion?

On the first point, despite the very difficult questions involved, I am satisfied that informants of this nature are necessary in cases of serious crime—provided that they are dealt with in accordance with very clear guidence, which is issued to the chief constables concerned.

Order. I do not want that word included in "Erskine May" in the list of words not to be used. As I am trying to find out why it is out of order, I should indicate to the hon. Gentleman that it would be in order on another occasion, but not on this one.

Well done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to introduce a change to the Immigration Rules to entitle all women who are British citizens under the Nationality Act 1981 to be joined in the United Kingdom by their husbands.

We are still considering what changes will be required in the Immigration Rules when the new British Nationality Act comes into effect and we shall announce our proposals in due course.

If, when the Act comes into force on 1 January, one group of hundreds and possibly thousands of young women in this country will be the only citizens without the right to live with their spouses in this country, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that group, which we know consists largely of young Asian women, will effectively be second-class British citizens, as they will have fewer rights than all the rest of British citizens?

If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, the people of whom he speaks are not British citizens. But perhaps I have misunderstood. We have not yet determined what our policy in this area will be. We shall make an announcement in due course, before the new rules come in.

Is not a wife's place where her husband belongs?

That is a generalisation of such a sweeping nature that I think that it would be imprudent for me to reply to it.

If the right hon. Gentleman will read the question, he will see that it refers to women who are British citizens. Will he bear in mind that the last Conservative general election manifesto stated that the rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law? Does he accept that if the rules are not changed he will have to add the words, "unless the citizens are women"?

I know that the original question referred to British citizens, but I understood the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question to be that the women concerned were not British citizens.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be ample support from Conservative Members if he decides to maintain the existing rule about foreign husbands? When does he intend to bring in such changes as will be needed in the Immigration Rules as a result of the British Nationality Act coming into force? Will he also confirm that the Act will be brought into force on 1 January next year?

I am aware that there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. It is our expectation that the British Nationality Act will come into force on 1 January next year. The changes in the rules will have to be brought in ahead of the implementation of the Act, but I cannot say on exactly what date we shall make our announcements.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), 6 April, Official Report, column 273, whether he is now able to give a more precise date for the submission by the Boundary Commission of its report containing its final recommendations.

It remains the position that the Boundary Commission for England hopes to complete its current general review by the end of 1982, and that it intends to submit its report as soon as possible thereafter.

I am not entirely ungrateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he tell the House whether he intends to fight the next election on the old or the new boundaries?

Personally, I should be equally happy to fight it on either—not that the Boundary Commission's proposals leave me unscathed, as I stand to lose the "Royal" in Royal Tunbridge Wells.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young persons between the age of 12 and 20 years were convicted during each of the past four years.

In 1980 about 210,000 persons aged 12 and under 21 were found guilty of indictable offences. In each of the three previous years the number was about 190,000. Information for 1981 is not yet available.

Does the Minister agree that the number of young people committing such offences must be a matter of sadness to any Government? Does he believe that the present economic situation has any bearing on this, in that for young people aged 12 to 14 standards at home are much lower than they should be, while those of 15 and 16 and upwards are highly frustrated due to the lack of jobs when they are ready to go to work?

I agree, of course, that it is both sad and reprehensible that so many offences are committed by young people in this age group. As a student of these matters, the hon. Gentleman will know that the origins and roots of crime are very tangled and complex. I do not think that unemployment can be said to have a direct bearing on the 12 to 14 age group, and certainly no causative link has been proved to exist between the level of unemployment and the level of crime.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the problems of young people becoming involved in crime have their basis in the home? Does he agree also that one of the difficulties that we face is that stability in the home is no longer what it was, due to trendy legislation which, among other things, makes for easier divorce and one-parent families?

I should not do justice to the last subject if I attempted to answer it at Question Time. I believe that there is scope for initiatives across a number of Departments to see whether there are ways in which opportunities for crime can be diminished. Those initiatives are now being taken.

Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office research unit study into the disorders in Handsworth last year concluded that unemployment was a major contributory factor in the riots?

I do not believe that anyone has ever disputed that unemployment offers an occasion for criminality, but it never offers an excuse and it would be a great disservice to the proper study of these matters if undue weight were placed on that factor alone.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this week in another place the Government were deservedly defeated because they opposed a realistic amendment making it harder for courts to impose custodial sentences on young offenders?

No, the hon. Lady is misinformed. The amendment did not make it harder. It sought to spell out in statutory language considerations that the courts need to have in mind before thay may sentence to custody. I explained at length in this House—and I obtained the approval of this House—that it is better to legislate in general terms and to allow the Court of Appeal to develop, in a series of judgments, the proper guidance to the courts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the film taken by police of demonstrations is retained by them; and for how long.

These are matters within the discretion of individual chief officers of police, and there is no central record of their procedures.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable and understandable disquiet over filming by police of demonstrators, as occurred on the CND demonstration recently? In the interests of civil liberties, would it not be right for such police practices to cease forthwith?

The answer to the first question is that I was not aware. The answer to the second question is "No, Sir" Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why should not the police use modern methods to detect and identify criminals? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the police service if, by this method, they can identify in advance terrorists, whether actual or potential?

I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that the purpose of the filming was for future briefing and training in the policing of large-scale events. That was a large-scale event.

Will the Home Secretary arrange for a showing in Westminster Hall of the films so that we can all have a look at them?

An awful number of people would be bored if they had to look at them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to amend the law as it relates to shoplifting; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. We are not persuaded that the law relating to theft from shops requires amendment.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that it is now almost 10 years since his Department produced the document "Shoplifting and Thefts by Shop Staff'? Since then, all that has happened has been a proliferation of anti-customer security devices by many of the large stores rather than the tackling of the problem that is really caused by their trading methods. Will he now review that document and, in particular, will he closely consult magistrates, many of whom have to deal with the tragic parts of these cases, involving people who previously led blameless lives and who find themselves on serious criminal charges?

The Home Office standing committee on crime prevention has been reviewing the report to which my hon. Friend refers. That review is almost complete but the fact remains that stealing from a shop is stealing, none the less. It would be wrong to make any change in the law that suggested that such stealing is somehow less serious than stealing from another area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received urging an independent police complaints procedure.

I have received representations from hon. Members and others in favour of changes in the present arrangements, a few proposing a wholly independent system of investigation.

Does the Home Secretary accept that one of the major causes of the disturbances in many of our cities last year was the feeling among many of those participating that they could not get a fair hearing when they had a complaint against the police? Does he agree that we need urgently an independent police complaints procedure?

I do not accept for one moment the premise of the hon. Gentleman's first point. On the second point, I have made it clear to the House that we are studying the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am having discussions with all the police organisations and I shall come forward to the House in due course with proposals.

Would it not be better to set up a procedure for praising the police?

I am delighted to say that many people do that already, but I wish that some people would pay slightly less attention to complaints, which are getting slightly out of proportion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the growth of the practice of glue sniffing among young people.

Since the reply given to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) on 11 March, we have received four letters from hon. Members about solvent abuse and 11 from members of the public.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern among all those who deal with the problems of young people at the spread of this repugnant practice, which has been proved to be dangerous to young people's health? Is he also aware that many people are concerned about Home Office complacency? Will he further examine the matter to see whether it is possible to require that an agent should be included in the glues used for glue sniffing so as to make those who participate violently sick?

I am aware of the concern referred to in the first part of the question. In tackling the problem, the Government place most reliance on persuasion and education at local level. In a debate on 20 April my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security set out the Government's policy and the action being taken. He outlined the plans for strengthening the capabilities of local services.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this is a widespread and worrying problem, particularly among young people and unemployed young people in the West Midlands? Will the Home Office consider setting up a working party or at least holding discussions with the manufacturers of glues and other solvents to see whether an additive could be placed in their products as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens)?

I am aware of the concern. The problem with putting in an additive is that an enormous variety of solvents can be sniffed for kicks. The demands on that additive would be so great that investigations have shown that a solution to the problem along those lines is unlikely.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 June.

This morning, following my return from the United States, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting frustation and anger at the proposed strike on the railways next week among the customers, the board and last, but by no means least, a large number of members of the National Union of Railwaymen, who have had no ballot, have not been consulted and many of whom do not seem to understand why their union proposes to call them out on strike? Would my right hon. Friend please take note of this and—as I hope she recognises that I am a supporter of the railways—can she see what can be done at this stage to prevent the railway industry from embarking on a strike that will be suicidal for the industry?

I am certain that my hon. Friend is correct when he says that a number of railwaymen do not wish to take part in a strike, realising that a strike could bleed the railways of the financial resources that they need, and could eventually take away the jobs of many railwaymen as well as stopping the creation of an efficient railway service. Sir Peter Parker has sent letters to all the work force setting out the implications of a strike. I hope that each and every member of the work force will consider the letter carefully.

Since the Prime Minister is still considering the form of the Falkland Islands inquiry, and in the light of the statements by the captain of the "Endurance" and her letter to the lady in Beaconsfield, will she make it clear that, whatever form the inquiry takes, it should be set up under the authority of the House so that all Members and not just party leaders can indicate its scope?

I have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman and a number of other right hon. Members about the form of the inquiry that I was proposing and which I had hoped would find favour. If it does not, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put forward other proposals. If it is to be thorough it will involve handling a good deal of intelligence material. That is a factor in considering what type of inquiry we should set up.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 June.

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

First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent speech in New York and also on her remarkable stamina? If my right hon. Friend has a chance to do so later today, will she examine the situation that has arisen over the Spanish application to join the EEC? It is reported that France will veto the application. Spanish membership would have severe implications for agriculturists and horticulturists in Britain. Will she examine the position to see whether, if Spain is to join, there can be the longest run-in period, in the interests of our own producers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments at the beginning of his question. With regard to the possible entry of Spain into the Community, I realise that British horticulturists may face increased competition for certain products, notably early potatoes and some fruit and vegetables. I fully agree with him that it is up to the British Government to safeguard the interests of the British horticulture industry and to see that we can achieve as long a transitional period as possible, as my hon. Friend requires.

Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the letter that I sent her recently expressing my dismay at the fact that our forces on the Falklands had to pay up to £15 to make telephone calls home to say that they were safe and well? Will she consider my suggestion that the British taxpayer should have the privilege of chipping in to save our soldiers having to pay?

I have received the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter. Where possible, arrangements are made for injured members of the task force to make one telephone call home, which is paid for out of welfare funds. We have no immediate plans to make free telephone facilities available to members of the task force.

Why not?

If the hon. Gentleman will wait for one moment I shall give him the reason. There are no shore-based telephone links between the Falklands and the United Kingdom and it may be some time before they can be repaired. We therefore think that the limited facilities available on ships should go first to those who are injured. If we were to try to arrange an equitable system for the 20,000 members of the task force to make free telephone calls, it would pose considerable administrative problems but, more importantly, difficult operational problems.

Does my right hon. Friend deplore the deliberate scare tactics of Mr. Arthur Scargill in walking out of his very first meeting with the new National Coal Board chairman after only three and a half minutes and shouting about a hit-list of pit closures? Is it not the case that the miners who worked in the pits that closed last year have found new and better jobs in more modern pits or have been retired on very generous terms? Surely it is wrong for the miners' leader to seek to exploit the situation and to obstruct the coal board's future by exploiting the fears of elderly miners?

I agree very much with my hon. and learned Friend. I understand that the National Coal Board made it clear to the National Union of Mineworkers that there is no so-called hit-list of pits earmarked for closure. As my hon. Friend said, those who are made redundant in the coal industry receive very generous redundancy payments. Many of the younger miners find jobs in better and more productive pits. I believe that that will be so when the new coalfields come into operation. Mr. Scargill's response in walking out of a meeting, for which the National Union of Mineworkers had asked, only three and a half minutes after it had started is, to put it mildly, hardly constructive.

I take up the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Does the right hon. Lady recall an earlier occasion last February when her hon. Friend asked her a question which directed her attention to the proposed possible invasion of the Falkland Islands by the Argentines and invited her to consider various reports? Did she take any action on that at that stage? If not, does she not consider that she made a gross error of judgment in failing to take preventive action in time? Whatever form an inquiry may take, ultimate responsibility for what took place rests upon her.

The right hon. Gentleman is in a position to know of the many threats that have been made by the Argentines over the years. The latest ones had to be judged against the background of those that had been made previously. I am happy to report to the right hon. Gentleman that the Argentines who landed on Southern Thule during his time have now been removed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is widespread and, in my view, well-founded belief that the nurses have been dealt with abominably and shabbily by successive Governments? As the Secretary of State for Social Services says that the nurses have a special case, will the right hon. Lady use her influence to ensure that they are put in the same league for pay rises as senior civil servants and judges?

A final offer has been made to the nurses. I understand that they are considering it. It is, of course, a greater offer than the one made to the other people who work in the Health Service, and we undertook that that should be so. We are also trying with them to find a new method of establishing their pay, and we hope to have that in place by 1983.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)? Does she not understand her responsibilities in this matter? Is she suggesting that she can shuffle off those responsibilities on to others, because the Labour Government dealt with them in a very different way from her own way? Does she mean to say, against the background of the letter that she wrote to Mrs. Nichols and the message that she received from Captain Baker, that all the signs were not there? Can she tell us why she neglected those signs?

Judging from what the right hon. Gentleman said throughout the Falklands affair and judging from what some of his hon. Friends have said, the fact is that a Labour Government would never have fired a shot—

Rubbish.

My letter to Mrs. Nichols was written in the early part of February. We were at that time doing exactly what I believe that right hon. Gentleman would have wished us to do. We were in negotiations with the Argentines. Two or three weeks after the letter was written we met the Argentines in New York. That meeting was described in a communiqúe as cordial and friendly. It took place two or three weeks after the letter was sent.

The right hon. Lady was conned.

Finally, the Argentines landed on British sovereign territory during the lifetime of the Labour Government. In spite of what the official Opposition say now, the Labour Government did nothing about it.

The right hon. Lady has a jaundiced view of the history. We will have all that out in the inquiry. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady will answer a direct question about her own responsibilities. Captain Barker said that all the signs were there. Does she agree with him?

That was in relation to "Endurance"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am willing and anxious to have every single bit of evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".]—before an inquiry. I do not wish to hide everything. I wish everything to be out, including every single thing under this Government and previous Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Marines were stationed on the Falkland Islands following a landing by a group of Argentines who described themselves as the Condor Group? Does she further recall that those Argentines landed on the race course in a hijacked Aerolineas Argentinas DC3? Does she agree with me that the level of defence that was provided by the Marines following that incident was quite consistent with the threat that was posed by those people?

My hon. Friend has put the facts, and I agree with him.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister arrange today for copies to be made available of any correspondence that has been received complaining about the inefficiency or conduct of the four distinguished chairmen of health authorities whom the Secretary of State for Social Services has decided not to reappoint? If no such correspondence has been received, why did the right hon. Gentleman make that despicable and partisan decision?

At the end of the contracts of service of those appointed to the National Health Service, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided not to renew some of them, but to renew others. He is perfectly entitled to do that. Previous Governments have done the same thing. Among those who hold office there are some Conservatives, some Labour Party supporters and some who have no politics at all.